Your most impressive exhibit does not have to come first
Evidence order is not a ranking of your achievements. It is a route for the reader.
Evidence order is not a ranking of your achievements.
It is a route for the reader.
The document with the biggest name may be strong evidence and still be a weak introduction.
A media feature can document public coverage.
It may not explain your field, your role inside an initiative, or the claim the section is making.
If it appears before that context, the reader has to guess why it matters.
I would order a section by questions instead:
- **Claim:** What is this section asking the reader to accept?
- **Context:** Which document makes the organization, initiative, role, or field legible?
- **Proof:** Which exhibit most directly verifies the fact?
- **Corroboration:** Which second source adds something the first source cannot?
Sometimes the most recognizable source belongs at step three.
That does not make it less valuable.
It means the earlier material has prepared the reader to understand its job.
The reverse is also true.
An exhibit should not come first only because it is easy to explain. It still has to support the claim.
Before numbering a section, write one line beside every document:
**What question does this answer for the reader?**
Then arrange the questions in the order a stranger would need them answered.
The best first exhibit is not always the one that looks most impressive on its own.
It is the one that makes the next piece of evidence easier to evaluate.