SCRIPT CHECK · 60 SECONDS
Five quick questions show how often it appears, how believable it feels, and what it makes you avoid. You’ll get one private next step.
This is not a diagnosis and there is no pass or fail. It measures the current frequency, credibility, and behavioral cost of “I write headlines for the algorithm, not the reader”, including the private rule underneath it: If the headline doesn't spike the real-time feed, the story underneath it must have been the wrong call — so the feed, not your reporting judgment, gets to decide what's worth covering next.
QUIET
“I write headlines for the algorithm, not the reader” appears, but it rarely gets the final say. Keep this line available for higher-pressure moments: “The feed measures how a headline performed. It doesn't measure whether the vote needed covering.”
PRESENT
“I write headlines for the algorithm, not the reader” wins some small decisions before you catch it. Your useful interruption is: “I can write an accurate headline and a clicked headline in the same sentence, or neither.”
ACTIVE
“I write headlines for the algorithm, not the reader” is shaping action often enough to deserve a deliberate counterexample. Start privately and concretely: Write the next follow-up's opening paragraphs in a private doc with only a working slug, no headline, and read them back alone.
DOMINANT
Right now, “I write headlines for the algorithm, not the reader” is steering many of the moments you measured. That is a pattern reading, not a diagnosis or character verdict. Begin with one reversible receipt: Write the next follow-up's opening paragraphs in a private doc with only a working slug, no headline, and read them back alone.