APG5642 Chap.5 Drafting and Source Integration
Drafting and Source Integration
A draft is a reporting instrument. Putting the story into sentences reveals whether the proposition is supported, which transitions depend on assumption and where a reader will ask for evidence.
The captured draft task explicitly allows visible gaps, making it possible to seek precise feedback and plan the remaining reporting.
Story architecture should follow the evidence rather than the order in which reporting occurred. A lead establishes the most important verified development or question.
The body then alternates evidence, context, human consequence and response in a sequence that lets the reader understand why each element matters. Quotations should do work that paraphrase cannot, while documentary facts and data need clear attribution and relevant hyperlinks.
Integration also means separating source roles.
A person with lived experience can establish what happened to them but may not explain the whole system. An expert can interpret a process but may not know the specific case. The accountable party's response must be represented fairly and checked. Draft annotations should mark missing verification, not provide an excuse to publish unresolved claims.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Drafting as a test of reporting completeness
- 02
Leads built from the strongest verified development
- 03
Evidence sequence rather than chronology of research
- 04
Context, consequence and accountability
- 05
Quotation, paraphrase and documentary attribution
- 06
Hyperlinks that connect claims to source material
- 07
Visible placeholders for missing reporting
- 08
Reflection and feedback as the next reporting plan
Repair an evidence-heavy opening
- 1Lead with the verified current finding, using careful language that describes association or pattern rather than an unproved cause.
- 1Introduce the resident whose experience illustrates the consequence, while making clear that one case does not establish prevalence.
- 1Add the most relevant comparison and denominator, attributing the record and linking to the source where appropriate.
- 1Supply only the policy history needed to understand why the finding matters at this point in the story.
- 1Place the responsible organisation's explanation beside the evidence it addresses, then test any factual assertion it introduces.
- 1Insert a reporting note where causal evidence remains missing and state the interview or record needed to resolve it.
Key terms
- Story architecture
- The evidence-led order that connects a lead, context, voices, documents, counterevidence, response and conclusion.
- Nut paragraph
- An early passage that explains the central issue, significance and direction after the lead has engaged the reader.
- Reporting gap
- A material claim, transition or section that lacks the evidence, context or response needed for publication.
- Journalistic attribution
- The clear in-text identification of where a fact, quotation, document or interpretation comes from.
- Source integration
- The placement of evidence and voices so that their distinct roles are clear and they test rather than merely repeat one another.
- Reflective memo
- A candid account of what worked, what failed, what remains unresolved and how the next reporting cycle should change.
Drafting and Source Integration FAQ
Should the story follow the order of the reporting process?
Usually not. Readers need an evidence-led sequence, not a diary of discovery. Organise around the strongest verified finding, necessary context, consequence, corroboration and response, then provide chronology only where it explains the issue.
When should a quotation be used?
Use a quotation when the exact language reveals character, experience, accountability or a distinctive formulation. Paraphrase routine information more efficiently, but preserve meaning, context and clear attribution in either form.
Are placeholders acceptable in a draft?
The draft task allows gaps to be indicated because the document is designed to support feedback and further reporting. Each placeholder should name the missing evidence or interview rather than conceal uncertainty with polished filler.
What makes a reflection analytically useful?
A useful reflection identifies specific research and writing decisions, explains what worked or failed, names unresolved difficulties and turns those lessons into a concrete plan. General claims about effort do not show reflective insight.
How should reporting gaps be managed?
Create a register with the exact sentence affected, the missing record or interview, the responsible team member and a deadline. Close the gap, narrow the claim or remove it before final editing so uncertainty cannot disappear inside polished prose.
Assessment move
Draft before reporting feels finished, but label uncertainty honestly. Print or export the draft and mark each paragraph by function: finding, context, human consequence, explanation, response or transition. Reorder until every paragraph earns its place and the strongest evidence arrives early. Highlight every statistic, quotation and documentary fact, then confirm attribution and hyperlinking.
Use a separate colour for causal language and test whether the evidence establishes cause or only association. End the session by converting each placeholder and weak transition into a reporting task with an owner and deadline. Perform a source-role edit after the structural pass. Beside every attributed passage, write what the source can genuinely establish and whether another source independently supports the point.
Check that affected experience is not presented as prevalence, expert explanation is not presented as direct case knowledge and official statements are not treated as complete by default. Then move each material response beside the claim it addresses. This exercise improves fairness while tightening the evidence sequence.
