# Section Entry Template

Add this entry to `.planning/SECTIONS.md` when completing a section:

```markdown
## Section [X]: [Name] (Completed: YYYY-MM-DD)

**Delivered:** [One sentence describing what argument this section makes]

**Word count:** [Actual] / [Target] ([+/-] [delta])

**Plans completed:** [N] plans

**Key accomplishments:**
- [Main argument established]
- [Supporting point 1]
- [Supporting point 2]
- [Evidence/citations integrated]

**Claims made:**
1. [Claim 1] — supported by [evidence]
2. [Claim 2] — supported by [evidence]
3. [Claim 3] — supported by [evidence]

**Citations added:** [N] citations
- [Key citation 1]: [context]
- [Key citation 2]: [context]

**What's next:** [Brief description of next section goals, or "Document complete"]

---
```

<structure>
If SECTIONS.md doesn't exist, create it with header:

```markdown
# Completed Sections: [Paper/Grant Title]

[Entries in chronological order - oldest first for narrative flow]
```
</structure>

<guidelines>
**When to create section entries:**
- After completing each major section
- Provides running record of progress
- Enables context restoration for later sessions

**Don't create entries for:**
- Individual paragraph completions (too granular)
- Work in progress (wait until section complete)
- Minor edits within completed sections

**Content to include:**
- Section goal and what was delivered
- Word count vs target (with delta)
- Key claims made and their support
- Major citations added
- Setup for next section

**After completion:**
- Update STATE.md word count table
- Update ROADMAP.md progress table
- Create SUMMARY.md for the section
</guidelines>

<example>
```markdown
# Completed Sections: AI-Assisted Writing Framework

## Section 1: Introduction (Completed: 2025-01-15)

**Delivered:** Establishes research gap in AI-assisted writing tools and positions our framework contribution

**Word count:** 847 / 800 (+47)

**Plans completed:** 1 plan (01-01)

**Key accomplishments:**
- Opened with compelling hook about researcher frustration
- Established context of AI writing tool proliferation
- Identified gap: no systematic framework for academic use
- Stated thesis: need for discipline-specific AI integration
- Previewed paper structure

**Claims made:**
1. AI writing tools are proliferating but usage is ad hoc — supported by Smith (2023), Jones (2024)
2. Academic writing has unique constraints not addressed by general tools — supported by Author (2022)
3. A framework would improve adoption and outcomes — logical argument from gaps

**Citations added:** 4 citations
- Smith (2023): Context on AI tool proliferation
- Jones (2024): Survey of current usage patterns
- Author (2022): Academic writing constraints
- Brown (2023): Gap identification support

**What's next:** Section 2 (Literature Review) - Comprehensive review of AI writing tool research

---

## Section 2: Literature Review (Completed: 2025-01-18)

**Delivered:** Synthesizes three threads of AI writing research and positions our contribution

**Word count:** 1523 / 1500 (+23)

**Plans completed:** 2 plans (02-01, 02-02)

**Key accomplishments:**
- Organized literature into three thematic threads
- Critically analyzed each thread with synthesis
- Explicitly addressed ethical concerns
- Positioned our work against existing gaps

**Claims made:**
1. Tool efficacy research shows promise but lacks researcher focus — supported by systematic review
2. Ethics debates center on authorship, not methodology — supported by Jones & Chen (2024)
3. Pedagogical integration models don't translate to research contexts — supported by gap analysis

**Citations added:** 15 citations
[List key citations...]

**What's next:** Section 3 (Methods) - Describe framework development process

---
```
</example>