diff --git a/app/services/output_review.py b/app/services/output_review.py
index 4fbb2fb..0fa6a9a 100644
--- a/app/services/output_review.py
+++ b/app/services/output_review.py
@@ -47,6 +47,18 @@ reply, or an email digest — and decide if it is publishable as-is.
 Mark CLEAN only if the text reads like finished editorial commentary
 a reader could see on a public dashboard without confusion.
 
+Editorial framework you should KNOW about (don't flag these):
+This dashboard's voice deliberately contrasts a "rational" read
+(fundamentals, policy regime, valuation) with an "irrational" read
+(positioning, narrative momentum, flows) and names the gap between
+them. Section labels like "Rational:" / "Irrational:" (or "Bull /
+Bear", or any explicit "X vs Y" contrast) are STRUCTURAL DEVICES,
+not the author thinking on the page. Treat them as finished prose.
+The Italian / Spanish / French / German equivalents
+("Razionalmente / Irrazionalmente", "Racionalmente / Irracionalmente",
+"Rationnellement / Irrationnellement", "Rational / Irrational") are
+the same device translated and equally fine.
+
 Mark UNCLEAN if the text contains ANY of:
 - Chain-of-thought / scratchpad markers — the author thinking on the
   page rather than presenting finished commentary. Phrases like
@@ -56,7 +68,9 @@ Mark UNCLEAN if the text contains ANY of:
   front of the reader (self-questioning) are not.
 - Self-questioning parentheticals: "Q1 2026? Actually Q4 2025?",
   "is it X or Y?", any place where the author appears to be working
-  out the answer in front of the reader.
+  out the answer in front of the reader. The "rational vs irrational"
+  contrast above is NOT self-questioning — the author is presenting
+  both reads as parallel takes, not asking which one is correct.
 - Meta-commentary about the task, output format, word limits, or
   instructions — e.g. "as required by the constraints", "the prompt
   asks", "let me address each".