Write a true claim and frame it so this audience can hear it

Write the core claim first

Phase three of the doctrine cycle develops a series: everything that will be said and done to move one audience toward one behaviour. It starts with the argument. Write the core claim in one sentence that is true, that you can source, and that tells the audience what they can do. Then write down what you are leaving out and ask whether a reasonable person would feel misled on learning it. A claim built from accurate fragments that add up to a false impression fails the truthfulness test as surely as a lie does. State uncertainty where it exists, in plain terms. Every segment gets the same facts; only emphasis and language change.

Frame it in the audience's values

People weigh arguments against their own values, not yours. Feinberg and Willer showed that arguments recast in the moral terms of the audience (for example purity, loyalty, or authority in place of harm and fairness) persuade better than arguments in the terms of the speaker. Use the values you heard in stage two. The discipline is that the frame changes the reason to care and never the claim itself. If a frame only works by implying something untrue, or by borrowing a value you do not actually respect, drop it. Check each frame with someone who holds that value.

Tell a true story

A story about one real person is remembered where a statistic is not. Use a real protagonist from the audience, with their informed consent, their own words, and the right to withdraw. Do not invent a person, merge several people into one and present the result as real, or pick a case so unusual that it misrepresents what usually happens. Pair the story with the number that shows how typical it is.

Fear needs a way out

Threat on its own does not move people to act. The Extended Parallel Process Model (Witte) predicts that when people feel threatened and do not believe they can do anything effective, they manage the fear instead of the danger: they avoid the subject, deny the risk, or resent the messenger. Meta-analyses support the practical rule that a fear appeal needs an efficacy component. If you describe a risk, describe it accurately and in proportion, and in the same breath give a specific action that works and that this audience can actually take. If you cannot offer that action, do not raise the fear. Guilt and shame follow the same rule and are best left out altogether.

Prebunk, and correct with care

You know from stage two which false claims the audience will meet. Inoculation research (Roozenbeek and van der Linden) suggests that warning people in advance, and showing them a weakened example of the misleading technique, builds resistance. When you must correct something already circulating, follow the Debunking Handbook: lead with the fact, warn once that a myth is coming, explain how it misleads, and end on the fact. Keep the myth out of headlines.

Correct claims, not the people who believed them, and do not characterise opponents. If the campaign is election-related, confine yourself to your own truthful case and to accurate information about how to take part; this manual gives no guidance on attacking an opponent.