CER Writing Strategy Template 1
Claim: [direct answer]. Evidence: [specific fact/data/text detail]. Reasoning: [why the evidence supports the claim using a principle or relationship].
Start with structure, then replace every placeholder with information that is true, relevant, and natural for your context. These templates are intentionally skeletal so your final writing does not sound mass-produced.
A strong CER response makes a precise claim, chooses evidence that is sufficient and directly relevant, and uses reasoning to connect the evidence to the claim instead of merely repeating either one.
Claim: [direct answer]. Evidence: [specific fact/data/text detail]. Reasoning: [why the evidence supports the claim using a principle or relationship].
[Claim]. This is supported by [evidence]. Because [reasoning principle], the evidence indicates [return to claim].
Although [qualification], the evidence supports [claim]: [evidence]. The connection matters because [reasoning].
C: [answer] E: [best evidence] R: [explain the link and, if needed, the governing principle]
Provenance and classification audit for CER Writing Strategy: draft statement/example → [ ]; classify as fact / interpretation / recommendation / convention / original example → [ ]; source or internal provenance → [ ]; source date / version / checked date → [ ]; attribution needed → [ ]; recency risk → [ ]; final publishable wording → [ ].
Source-record and update audit for CER Writing Strategy: statement / example → [ ]; external fact, project fact, interpretation, recommendation, convention, or original example → [ ]; controlling first-party / primary source → [ ]; secondary source if used → [ ]; source record / locator → [ ]; date or version checked → [ ]; update trigger → [ ]; publish / qualify / revise / hold → [ ].
Source-ledger and revision-history audit for CER Writing Strategy: claim / recommendation / example → [ ]; source or project record ID → [ ]; source status active / superseded / corrected / retracted / retired → [ ]; claim-level last verified date/version → [ ]; event that triggered recheck → [ ]; correction / withdrawal action → [ ]; reader-facing disclosure needed? → [ ]; what changed and why → [ ]; prior wording/version retained at → [ ].
Claim/source status audit: Item [claim/source/example] | Status [active / review due / stale / corrected / retracted / superseded] | Controlling source/version [x] | Last verified [date/version] | Stale trigger [x] | Correction severity [0–3] | Reader disclosure [none / note / correction / withdrawal] | Changelog entry [what changed + why].
Dependency and propagation audit: Claim / example / recommendation [x] | Controlling source / project record [x] | Dependency strength [direct / shared / advisory / independent] | Review trigger / reason code [x] | Needs-review scope [local / direct dependents / cluster] | Replacement source requirements [x] | Carry-forward decision [x] | Propagation targets [x] | Reader disclosure / changelog action [x].
Persistent editorial registry audit: Topic slug → [ ]; claim UID/key → [ ]; source UID/key → [ ]; dependency UID + strength → [ ]; source status/version → [ ]; open review UID/reason/priority → [ ]; replacement source if any → [ ]; reviewer + resolution → [ ].