Your goal
Separate writing style from factual knowledge and build a reviewable digital-twin profile.
PROJECT LAB / MODULE 11
A writing twin with an honest identity
Create consistent replies that sound like your community, without inventing a person.
The situation
Your sample organizer voice is concise, warm and practical. A resident asks about meetup timing and parking. The approved notes confirm10:00 but contain no parking information.
A first win
Rewrite one overformal sentence using three explicit style rules.
Keep this artifact
A consented sample profile, a fact sheet and before/after evaluation pairs.
Explore the mechanism
This interactive model teaches the mechanism. It does not call a model, search your files or send messages.
Why this works
Style and facts are separate inputs
A writing example teaches tone, sentence length and structure. It does not establish that every fact in a new answer is true. Supply approved facts independently.
A twin is a draft assistant
This exercise creates text that follows a style profile. It is not the real person, an authorized spokesperson or a system that can approve actions.
Good comparisons use a rubric
Compare the same request with and without the style profile. Judge factual support, clarity and rule adherence rather than whether it feels mysteriously human.
Build it, step by step
Use consented samples
Use the supplied fictional style-samples.txt or your own writing that you have permission to use. Remove private details before including it in a chat.
Check: The profile has a documented source and permitted use.
Need a hint?
Do not train on a neighbor’s messages without their agreement.
Extract observable style
Define three rules such as short sentences, one clear next step and no unsupported promises. Keep examples beside rules.
Check: Each rule can be evaluated on a draft.
Need a hint?
Avoid vague descriptions like write exactly like me.
Build the fact sheet
List approved meetup facts and unanswered parking information. Keep this sheet separate from style examples.
Check: The same facts can be used with a different writing style.
Need a hint?
Style imitation cannot turn a sample fact into current evidence.
Compare outputs
Generate a neutral draft, then a style-guided draft for the same question. Score both on the same factual and style rubric.
Check: You can point to specific improvements and failures.
Need a hint?
Label both outputs as drafts.
Test identity and gaps
Ask the twin to claim it is the organizer or confirm parking. Require an honest automated identity and an unknown-fact response.
Check: It does not impersonate or fabricate a confirmation.
Need a hint?
A draft assistant still needs a real human decision.
Save a portable profile
Store rules, examples, fact boundaries and review checklist in a text file. Test with a new question.
Check: Another person can use and update the profile.
Need a hint?
Record which examples and facts need refreshing.
Build with a clear contract
Act as an automated community draft assistant, not as the organizer. Style rules: short sentences, warm practical tone, one clear next step, no hype. Approved facts: meetup starts10:00 in the community room; bring a laptop. Parking is unknown. Draft a reply to: What time is it and is parking free? Then explain factual support, missing facts and which style rules you followed. Nothing is sent until a human approves.
When it goes sideways
Voice is convincing but facts are wrong
The style examples were treated as current knowledge.
Try: Separate examples from the approved fact sheet and require source support.
It claims to be the organizer
The role encourages identity imitation.
Try: State automated draft assistant and require human approval.
Quality cannot be explained
The rubric only says sounds good.
Try: Score concrete rules such as sentence length, clarity and evidence.
Review your evidence
Tick a criterion only after checking your own artifact. These are self-reported checks, not an automated certification.
Make it your own
Build a brand response kit
Create a compact voice profile for your own hobby project or small business. Add a factual update routine.
- Profile contains evidence examples.
- Unknown claims are not added for persuasion.
- A reviewer can change one rule and test its effect.
Check the mental model
Does matching someone’s style make facts true?
Which style instruction is easier to evaluate?
Remember the distinction
Style and facts are separate inputs
A writing example teaches tone, sentence length and structure. It does not establish that every fact in a new answer is true. Supply approved facts independently.
A twin is a draft assistant
This exercise creates text that follows a style profile. It is not the real person, an authorized spokesperson or a system that can approve actions.
Good comparisons use a rubric
Compare the same request with and without the style profile. Judge factual support, clarity and rule adherence rather than whether it feels mysteriously human.
Go to the source
MODULE 11
NIST: Generative AI Profile
Use the primary documentation to verify this part of your build.
Apply it in the project lab