Before splitting a note, decide: what is the core claim versus supporting evidence?
When splitting a compound note during refactoring, make explicit decisions about which idea is the core claim, what was supporting evidence versus separate argument, and how the pieces causally relate before completing the split.
Why This Is a Rule
A compound note contains ideas in a flat, undifferentiated structure — all ideas appear equally important because they're all in the same container. When you split, you must impose a hierarchy: which idea is the core claim? Which ideas are supporting evidence for that claim? Which ideas are separate arguments that happened to be captured in the same note?
These decisions are the actual intellectual work of refactoring. Splitting a note mechanically (cut at paragraph breaks, paste into new files) is trivial and valueless. Splitting a note intellectually — deciding what role each piece plays in the argument — forces you to confront the logical structure of your thinking.
The decisions must happen before the split, not after. Once the pieces are in separate files, the implicit relationships vanish and it becomes much harder to determine how they originally related. While everything is still visible in one note, you can see the relationships clearly enough to make good structural decisions.
When This Fires
- During knowledge base refactoring when splitting compound notes into atoms
- When a note contains a claim plus its evidence and you're deciding how to structure them
- Anytime you're about to create multiple notes from a single source note
- After identifying a compound note via the link test (If some links only connect to part of a note, the note needs splitting) or word count threshold (Split notes at 800 words or 3 topics — decomposition reveals hidden causal chains)
Common Failure Mode
Splitting without deciding on hierarchy — creating three equal-weight atomic notes from a compound note that had a clear core claim with two supporting pieces. The resulting notes are all atomic but their relationship is lost. Without explicit link labels ("supports," "evidence_for," "contrasts_with"), the decomposed notes are orphaned from each other.
The Protocol
Before splitting a compound note: (1) Read the entire note and ask: "What is the single main claim here?" That becomes the core note. (2) For each remaining piece, classify: is this supporting evidence for the core claim, or a separate argument? Evidence becomes linked to the core note with "supports" or "evidence_for" relationship. Separate arguments become independent notes with their own links. (3) Determine causal relationships: does A cause B? Does C contradict D? (4) Write the link labels first, then split. The labels preserve the structural relationships that the compound note held implicitly.