Template rubric 1.2 — describe templates by structure, not by their sample data
Review feedback on the description convention: the differentiator was
leaning on content-type nouns, and data is interchangeable. Swap
customers for invoices and it is the same template, so the data cannot be
what distinguishes one from another — and a fixture-led description locks
the template to the sample it ships with. Someone building an invoice or
a job record needs detail-page exactly and matched none of its order
vocabulary.
Writing the description now asks for four structural lenses — layout,
container, data shape, behavior — with domain nouns demoted to
interchangeable examples, and adds the sibling comparison as the most
discriminating sentence usually available. Worked example carries all
three versions of detail-page, including the noun-led wrong turn, since
that is the easy mistake to make.
Also documents that -able adjectives and verb forms never match each
other under the stemmer: resizable never answers a query for resize.
Minor bump rather than patch because §5b now caps a description at 2 when
sample-data nouns are doing the separating, which can change a score.
Point values, category maxima and the 100-point total are unchanged.
Measured over the same 36-query battery: structure-led descriptions
scored 32/36 top-1 against 23/36 noun-led.
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>