Prerequisites
Source-based writing, attribution, narrative voice, and ethical review.
Track what is quoted, paraphrased, reconstructed, or invented. A compelling scene does not erase differences in evidence or consent. Explain editorial transformations, respect the stated scope of participation, and avoid presenting composite speech as a verbatim historical exchange.
Worked example
Combining two fictional accounts into one narrator can make a narrative concise. Calling it a disclosed composite preserves a distinction that quotation marks and a claim of verbatim transcription would obscure.
Model and Assumptions
Fictional workshop dossier: speaker A permits an interview recording to be used only in class. Speaker B agrees to an attributed public excerpt after review. A draft combines their words into one unnamed speaker and adds an imagined private conversation, then labels the entire scene 'verbatim testimony'.
Further inquiry
Produce a short editorial policy and a revised scene label for the dossier. Explain how you would preserve narrative force while distinguishing evidence from invention, document scope changes, and respond when accuracy and a preferred dramatic effect conflict.
Review criteria
- Separate quotation, paraphrase, composite construction, and invention.
- Respect each speaker's distinct agreement rather than treating permission as transferable.
- Describe uncertainty and editorial accountability without claiming that disclosure removes every ethical concern.