The maxim applies when a moving or unnecessary standard prevents a usable release. It does not apply when a correction protects accuracy, safety, or a requirement the recipient actually needs. Read it as a conditional claim about progress, not as permission to lower every standard.
A worked situation: Facts checked and argument clear
Fictional example. A writer's draft is factually checked, but she keeps delaying it because the opening must feel unforgettable. The release standard becomes a moving feeling instead of a checkable requirement.
Work through these questions: Facts checked and argument clear
| Question or field | Fictional completed example |
|---|---|
| Required standard? | Facts checked and argument clear |
| Moving demand? | An unforgettable opening |
| Useful revision? | Fix an inaccurate sentence |
| Stopping rule? | One final accuracy pass |
| Progress evidence? | Draft shared with the editor |
When the maxim applies—and when it does not
Ask what the extra revision changes for the recipient. In the writer example, correcting an inaccurate sentence serves the draft; demanding an unforgettable opening without a checkable endpoint delays it. A safety-critical review is a different case and should not be rushed under this maxim. Kerub’s Addiction to Potential lens asks whether keeping a draft private protects an untested image. That is an authored interpretation to examine, not a diagnosis. Use the linked action guide if your next task is to define checks and a release experiment.