Readers these days are no longer satisfied with spellcheck, grammatical correctness or institutional tone. They want signs that the writer wrestled with the ideas: emphasis, asymmetry, judgment, risk, specificity and even mild inconsistency. In other words, they want evidence of a human and not an artificial mind at work.
Once upon a time writing rewarded impersonality, and it now resembles AI-generated prose.
The center of gravity captures what institutional writing lacks: AI produces bland prose, but that academic culture normalized blandness long before AI arrived.
Specific examples like generic transitions, abstract language strengthen the argument because they identify recognizable habits instead of speaking vaguely about AI-like writing.
One area for refinement is the distinction between clarity and uniformity. Some readers may conclude that polished prose itself is suspect, when the real concern is prose that suppresses intellectual individuality. A sentence clarifying that distinction could sharpen the argument.
Readers must seek a recognizable human intelligence shaping ideas feelings and human emotions rather than delivering information.