Require Body Elaboration Beyond Filename Definition

Every Gloss body elaborates beyond the filename definition. The opening sentence restates the definition and adds at least one useful clause — a contrast with an adjacent term, a concrete instance, a one-step derivation, a grounding reference — and the body grows from there as the term warrants. A Gloss whose body is a verbatim repetition of the filename definition (or a trivial rewording of it) is not conforming; the filename has already delivered that content, and the body must add value a reader benefits from opening the file for.

Why

The commitment ensures body adds substance beyond what the filename carries. The filename-carries-definition pattern makes the folder view readable as a dictionary — but the file itself must justify its existence beyond the dictionary entry. A reader who opens the file has decided to pay the reading cost; the body must return something that cost. A verbatim-repeating body returns nothing — the reader sees the same content the filename already delivered, and the whole file becomes redundant with its filename.

The one-clause-minimum elaboration is what distinguishes a Gloss from a filename entry. The filename says what the concept is at a single-clause resolution; the body extends — the opening restates with one more clause of specificity, the body's second paragraph (when present) adds an instance or a structural consequence, the body's third paragraph (when present) distinguishes the concept from an adjacent term. The growth path is from filename to body; truncating the body at the filename's resolution leaves the file pointless.

The rule forbids trivial rewording specifically, not brief bodies. A Gloss whose body is a single paragraph of two or three sentences is fine if those sentences add specificity the filename did not carry. A Gloss whose body is a single paragraph of two sentences that say in different words exactly what the filename already said is the violation — the rule targets repetition, not length. Short Glosses are welcome; trivially repetitive Glosses are not.

The elaboration bar is low enough that most concepts worth a Gloss can meet it. A concept has adjacent concepts from which it differs, typical uses, one-step derivations from prior Glosses, or concrete instances in the graph — any of these provides material for the required elaboration. A concept that cannot be elaborated beyond the filename definition is usually one whose filename definition is already comprehensive — and the question the reviewer should ask is whether the concept needs a file at all, or whether a ghost link with the filename-level definition is sufficient. The rule is both a quality gate and a diagnostic.

Alternatives Considered

Permit pure-filename Glosses with empty bodies. Let Gloss files exist with filename-only definitions and no body content. Rejected because the file adds nothing over a ghost link — a wikilink to a nonexistent file provides the same "the concept exists, here is the definition" signal via the filename-as-ghost-link convention. Creating empty-bodied Gloss files to serve that signal wastes filesystem entries and trains contributors that opening a Gloss file is not worth the click. Either the concept warrants a body (and the Gloss should have one) or the concept does not yet warrant a file (and a ghost link carries the definition adequately).

Permit trivial rewording as elaboration. Accept Gloss bodies whose content is the filename definition expressed in different words. Rejected because the reader's cost of opening the file is paid for content-that-is-not-content — different words, same information. The rule's purpose is to ensure the body pays back the reading cost; trivial rewording fails that test as clearly as verbatim repetition.

Require a minimum body word count. Specify "Gloss bodies MUST contain at least 50 words" or similar. Rejected because word-count rules target the wrong failure mode. The failure mode is content-free repetition, not shortness; a 50-word body can still be trivially repetitive, and a 15-word body can add real specificity. The rule targets elaboration semantics directly ("adds at least one useful clause") rather than indirectly through length.

What Would Change It

The commitment would be revisited under one condition.

Minimal Glosses become common and the body requirement feels forced. If the project accumulates many concepts whose filename definitions are genuinely comprehensive — where the one-clause definition already carries everything a reader needs and further elaboration would be padding — the rule would produce Glosses with forced bodies rather than valuable ones. The revisit would weaken the rule to "Glosses SHOULD elaborate; pure-filename Glosses are permitted when the concept genuinely needs nothing beyond the definition." Current Glosses have all elaborated comfortably; no pressure exists. The rule is carrying its weight.

Relations