The standards of refinement
Rhetorical
Transparency Standard.
RTS gives readers a way to describe how an argument works, including the assumptions it asks them to accept and the evidence it offers.
Make the argument visible.
Developed by Advanced Intelligence Refinery, RTS identifies thirteen ways rhetoric can obscure the relationship between a claim and its support. The criteria apply to writing from people and AI systems alike.
Unsupported intent attribution
Assigning motives, intentions, or private beliefs without sufficient evidence to support the attribution.
Fact-inference conflation
Presenting an interpretation or deduction as though it were an established fact, obscuring the step between observation and conclusion.
Loaded/evaluative framing
Using language that embeds a judgment in the description, encouraging readers to accept an evaluation before examining its basis.
Presupposition/loaded question
Building an unestablished assumption into a statement or question so that responding on its terms appears to concede the premise.
False dichotomy
Presenting two options as exhaustive when meaningful alternatives, intermediate positions, or combinations remain available.
Unsupported consensus claim
Invoking agreement as support without establishing who agrees, how broadly, or on precisely which claim.
Selective framing/material omission
Emphasizing some facts while leaving out context that could materially change a reader’s understanding or judgment.
Self-serving characterization
Presenting a person’s or institution’s preferred account of its own conduct as a neutral description, without examining the basis for that account.
Emotional substitution
Using an emotional response to do the work of evidence or reasoning, rather than supporting the conclusion being advanced.
Authority substitution
Using status, prestige, or an appeal to expertise in place of an adequate evidential basis for the particular claim.
Vague/unattributed sourcing
Relying on sources described too vaguely for readers to assess their identity, relevance, or connection to the claim.
Certainty inflation
Expressing more confidence, precision, or finality than the available evidence warrants.
Causal overreach
Claiming that one event or factor caused another when the evidence supports only association, sequence, or a more limited causal conclusion.
Human judgment remains central.
A rhetorical concern is a reason to examine a claim more closely. It does not, by itself, establish that the claim is false or that its author intended to mislead. Use the criteria alongside the original sources and context.