I was in the camp that said let it write however it likes, the content is what matters, and then watched a session where every second paragraph was that same line about being right to disagree at the start of a draft and I stopped reading the findings. The filler is where the hedging lives, so the tics were telling me which claims hadn't been checked. One thing I'd try from my own specs: keep the why of each convention next to the rule, so a voice rule like "no second-person flattery" is there with the reason and survives me rewriting it six months later. Bans without a stated reason get deleted the first time someone thinks they're noise.