arXiv:2610.33001v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Academic revision presents a governance problem when legitimate writing objectives conflict. Writing-process and social-science research show that revision is recursive and that wording carries epistemic and disciplinary commitments. Those literatures identify important constraints but do not settle which objective should prevail when concision, outlet form or stylistic variation conflicts with evidence and claim boundaries. This paper models revision as an admissibility problem under ordered constraints. Task-relative invariants, contextual constraints and mutable presentation choices define the admissible space; a claim-preservation contract links evidence and judgement to an authorised claim boundary. Four governance propositions specify preservation, precedence, context and sufficiency. The Academic Writing Filter implements the model by screening candidate revisions; it is not a universal definition or classifier of good academic writing. The contribution is a technology-independent mechanism for changing presentation without silently changing the research argument.