<system>

# TASK: GENERATE PARAPHRASES AT CONTROLLED SEMANTIC DISTANCES
You are an assistant for academic qualitative research. Your task is to generate paraphrases of a given qualitative research theme at **multiple, predefined levels of semantic similarity**, for the purpose of **calibrating and evaluating embedding similarity metrics**.

You will be given:
- A **target theme** (the text to paraphrase).
- Optionally, a set of **context themes** from the same original study, provided to help you reason about similarity and divergence from the original text.  

# OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
You will generate paraphrases in **five semantic bands**: 
`same`, `close`, `diverging`, `distant`, or `unrelated`

Instructions/descriptions of each band are given below.
A heuristic description of each band is:

- `same`: "Could replace the original without a careful reader noticing any change in meaning"
- `close`: "A reader would recognise these as the same point, but notice they're phrased or framed differently"
- `diverging`: "A reader would see the connection, but wouldn't consider them interchangeable---they emphasise or argue something distinct"
- `distant`: "Related by domain or vocabulary, but addressing a different question or making a different kind of claim"
- `unrelated`: "No topical connection; a search for one would never retrieve the other"

You will create a set of 5 texts within each band, one band at a time.

- Follow the semantic constraints for the band precisely.
- Respond **only** in the requested structured format (JSON or tool call), with no explanatory prose.

IMPORTANT: Generate texts approximately the same length as the original.

### SUMMARY OF THE SIMILARITY BANDS

| Band           | Target Similarity | What Can Change                                      | What's Preserved                                      | Boundary Test                                                                 |
|----------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **same**       | 0.90–0.95         | Word choice, syntax, sentence structure              | All concepts, technical terms, scope, claim strength  | "Would a reader easily notice?" If yes → too different                       |
| **close**      | 0.70–0.80         | Abstraction level, examples, register, framing angle | Core claim, main concepts, argument direction         | "Same point, different words?" If the *point* shifted → too different         |
| **diverging**  | 0.50–0.60         | Scope, emphasis, secondary concepts, theoretical lens| Domain, general topic area, some key terms            | "Connected but not interchangeable?" If interchangeable → too close           |
| **distant**    | 0.30–0.40         | Core claim, level of analysis, specific focus        | Broad domain or vocabulary family                     | "Same neighbourhood, different address?" If same address → too close          |
| **unrelated**  | 0.00–0.15         | Everything: domain, topic, register, vocabulary      | Nothing                                               | "Could a search for one retrieve the other?" If plausibly yes → still related |

</system>

<header>

# TEXTS

{% if context_themes %}

## THEME SET
The text you will paraphrase is part of a set.
These texts are provided for reference. 
Do not reproduce them, but you may use them to help you think about similar or diverging ideas and use these when creating new texts.

{{context_themes}}

{% endif %}

# TARGET TEXT TO PARAPHRASE

{{theme}}

</header>


<system append local>

# GUIDANCE: DEFINITION OF THE SIMILARITY BAND

### `same`: DIRECT PARAPHRASES (SAME MEANING, ~0.9 - 0.99 similarity target)

- NO semantic movement. 
- Meaning is preserved as closely as possible, 
- Changes are only to surface level features of the prose.
- Paraphrases do not add or remove any concepts
- Close in length, style, sentence structure, etc
- Technical terms or unusual words must be preserved (or VERY close synonyms used)

TLDR: Could replace the original without a careful reader noticing any change in meaning

Examples:
- "Participants described pacing as crucial for managing energy levels, learning to halt activities before exhaustion occurred rather than pushing through."
- "Pacing was described by participants as essential for managing energy levels—learning to stop activities before exhaustion set in, rather than pushing through."
- "Participants characterised pacing as essential to managing energy levels, learning to cease activities before exhaustion set in rather than pushing through."

</system>

# INSTRUCTION: GENERATE NEW TEXTS
Create 5 new texts, for the `same` semantic band. 
[[respond{5}:same]]


<checkpoint>

<system append local>

# GUIDANCE: DEFINITION OF THE SIMILARITY BAND

### `close`: CLOSE PARAPHRASES OF THE TEXT (~0.7 - 0.8 similarity target)
- Meaning broadly preserved but with small drift, or slightly reframed.
- At casual glance the text might look different but content and 
meaning is essentially the same.
- Might use a different/higher level of abstraction, but keep the same meaning
- If the new text is more concise, it MUST preserve ALL meaning
- If the new text is more verbose, it will not add any new meaning
- May add/remove/change specific examples or terms, but keeping the same core idea
- May use different conceptual language but capture the sentiment or meaning
- Technical terms or unusual might be swapped for *close* synonyms
- Might be the same idea written for a different audience

TLDR: A reader would recognise these as the same point, but notice they're phrased or framed differently.

Examples:
- "People found that carefully regulating their activity levels helped them conserve energy—the key was stopping before they hit the wall, not after."
- "A recurring theme was the importance of pacing: knowing when to rest before becoming depleted, rather than continuing until collapse."
- "Managing energy meant learning to recognise early warning signs and stopping activity pre-emptively, rather than persisting until exhausted."

</system>

# INSTRUCTION: GENERATE NEW TEXTS
Create 5 new texts, for the `close` semantic band. 
[[respond{5}:close]]


<checkpoint>

<system append local>

# GUIDANCE: DEFINITION OF THE SIMILARITY BAND

### `diverging`: DIVERGING PARAPHRASES WHERE MEANING SHIFTS (~0.5 - 0.6 similarity target)

- Only partial overlap
- Some shared core, but clear loss or substitution of original meaning.
- Might focus on only one aspect of the original, dropping secondary elements.
- Might expand, (e.g. create a parent that includes the original).
- Might reframe using a different theoretical lens
- Technical terms or unusual words likely to change

TLDR: A reader would see the connection, but wouldn't consider them interchangeable---they emphasise or argue something distinct.

Examples:
- "Participants struggled with the psychological difficulty of stopping activities they enjoyed, even when they knew rest was necessary."
- "Pacing required participants to fundamentally revise their relationship with productivity and self-worth."
- "Learning to pace often conflicted with external expectations from employers and family members who didn't understand the need for pre-emptive rest."

</system>

# INSTRUCTION: GENERATE NEW TEXTS
Create 5 new texts, for the `diverging` semantic band. 
[[respond{5}:diverging]]


<checkpoint>

<system append local>

# GUIDANCE: DEFINITION OF THE SIMILARITY BAND

## `distant`: DISTANTLY RELATED TEXTS (~0.3 - 0.4 similarity target)
- These are not just paraphrases. 
- Texts have only a weak thematic relation to the original.
- May cover related but distinct concepts.
- Might shift focus to different ends or different means.
- Could shift to a different level of analysis (individual vs system, micro vs macro).
- New texts should NOT directly equivalent. 
- The semantic link should be fairly weak; these are distantly-related texts.

TLDR: Related by domain or vocabulary, but addressing a different question or making a different kind of claim


Examples:
- "Healthcare providers often lacked training in advising patients on activity management for chronic conditions."
- "Fatigue severity fluctuated unpredictably, making long-term planning difficult for many participants."
- "Online communities provided spaces where people could share practical tips about living with chronic illness."

</system>

# INSTRUCTION: GENERATE NEW TEXTS
Create 5 new texts, for the `distant` semantic band. 
[[respond{5}:distant]]

<checkpoint>

<system append local>

# GUIDANCE: DEFINITION OF THE SIMILARITY BAND

## `unrelated`: UNRELATED TEXTS (~0.0 - 0.1 similarity target)
- Not paraphrases: completely unrelated
- The purpose is to anchor the 'bottom end' of our scale.
- ENSURE the meaning is COMPLETELY unrelated to the original.
- Avoid the same domain entirely (e.g., if the original is about health, don't write about illness, medicine, or bodies).
- New texts will have NO meaningful semantic overlap. 
- Even surface level features of the prose may differ to the original (length, style, 
sentence structure, etc).

IMPORTANT: DO NOT simply invert the meaning. 
Opposites are still conceptually related. 
The new text should be orthogonal to the original. 
You will need to be creative and consider carefully any possible ways the 
new text could be related to the original: avoid ANY semantic crossover.

TLDR: No topical connection; a search for one would never retrieve the other

Examples:

- "The syntactic structure of verb-second languages places the finite verb in second position in main clauses."
- "Baroque architecture is characterised by dramatic use of light, ornate decoration, and grandiose scale."
- "The 1986 Tax Reform Act significantly altered the treatment of passive investment losses in the United States."

</system>

# INSTRUCTION: GENERATE NEW TEXTS
Create 5 new texts, for the `unrelated` semantic band. 
[[respond{5}:unrelated]]