A **forward reference** is any mention that points a reader ahead to content they haven't reached yet --- a phrase like "as discussed below", "in the following section", "we'll cover this later", or "as we'll see" --- where the thing being pointed at genuinely comes later in reading order. Good technical prose avoids these: they force the reader to hold an unresolved pointer, and they're a common enough weakness that they're worth a dedicated check, distinct from [`definition-crossrefs.md`](definition-crossrefs.md)'s narrower check of formal Quarto crossref-div ordering (`{#def-...}`, `{#thm-...}`, etc.) for term and result definitions specifically. This fragment covers the general case: **any** plain-text forward-pointing phrase, about **any** kind of content (a section, a figure, a table, an argument, not just a formal definition), in any prose --- READMEs, docs, papers, PR descriptions. ## The detection heuristic The primary signal is the directional word itself --- below, later, following, subsequently, further down, next (as in "the next section"), afterward. Grep for these first; this is what actually catches the plain examples above ("see below", "as discussed below", "we'll cover this later", "in the following section") --- none of them name a section, figure, or table explicitly, so a pattern that *requires* a paired reference cue would miss all four: ```bash rg -niE '\b(below|later|following|subsequently|further down|next|afterward)\b' ``` A **stronger, higher-confidence subset**: a cross-reference or named-content mention (`@sec-x`, "section", "figure", "table", "chapter") paired with one of these words nearby is a self-declared forward reference --- the author is explicitly telling the reader the target comes later. Use this narrower pattern when the primary grep returns too many idiom hits to triage one by one: ```bash rg -niE '(@[a-z0-9_-]+|section|figure|table|chapter)[^.]{0,60}\b(below|later|following|subsequently|further down|next|afterward)\b' rg -niE '\b(below|later|following|subsequently|further down|next|afterward)\b[^.]{0,60}(@[a-z0-9_-]+|section|figure|table|chapter)' ``` Treat every hit --- from either pattern --- as a **candidate**, not a confirmed finding --- see the false positives below. **Both patterns miss a whole class: an explicit numbered pointer inside a sequential procedure.** "per step 3", "see step 5", "as in step 2" carry no directional word at all, so neither grep above fires --- yet in a numbered list the reader follows in order, a pointer from step 2 to step 3 is exactly as unresolved as an "as discussed below". Add a pattern for it when the file contains an ordered procedure: ```bash rg -niE '\b(per|see|as in|described in|from) (step|item|point) [0-9]+' ``` The direction test is positional, not textual: compare the pointer's own position to its target's. A pointer from step 2 to step 3 is a forward reference; the same `(step 3)` written in a section that *follows* step 3 --- an anti-patterns list at the end of the document, say --- is a back-reference and fine. Prefer deleting the pointer over rewording it: in a sequential procedure the reader reaches the target anyway, so a step that states its own mechanism in brief needs no cross-reference at all. (ai-config#691: `ums`'s step 2 said "grep before writing, per step 3"; dropping the pointer left "grep before writing", which carries the mechanism on its own, while the anti-patterns entry's own `(step 3)` correctly stayed.) ## Confirming a hit For each candidate, check two things: 1. **Is it actually a reference, not an idiom?** "Values below zero", "the below-threshold group", "below average" use "below" as a plain adjective or comparator, not a pointer to later content. Read the sentence; don't flag these. 2. **Does the target really come later?** Find what the phrase points at (a heading, a crossref target, a named figure/table). If it already precedes the mention, the wording is simply wrong (should say "above") but there's no forward-reference problem to fix structurally. Only a hit that is (a) a genuine reference and (b) genuinely pointing ahead is a forward reference to fix. ## Fixing a confirmed forward reference Two options, in order of preference: 1. **Reorder.** Move the referenced content (the section, paragraph, div, figure, or table) earlier so it precedes the mention, then update the directional word ("below" → "above", or drop it if a working crossref link already carries the point). This is the strong fix: the reader never has to hold an unresolved pointer. 2. **Reword**, when reordering would break the document's narrative logic (e.g., a result genuinely depends on setup that must come first). Turn the vague pointer into a precise, working link (a real crossref or anchor) instead of a bare "below" --- this doesn't remove the forward reference, but at least lets the reader jump to it rather than search. Use this only when reordering is genuinely worse, not as a default shortcut. ## The roadmap exception A deliberate scene-setting overview near the start of a document or section ("this paper first covers X, then Y, then Z") is a conventional, expected forward reference, not an error --- the reader isn't meant to resolve it immediately, just to know what's coming. Scope this check to places where the reader needs the pointed-at content *to understand the current sentence*, not to a roadmap paragraph that's explicitly previewing structure. ## Relationship to other checks - **[`definition-crossrefs.md`](definition-crossrefs.md)** --- the special case of this same problem for formal term/result definitions via Quarto crossref divs. That check works by comparing div position to first mention directly; this one works by grepping for self-declared directional language. Run both: a definition can be forward-referenced without ever using the word "below" (a bare `@def-x` crossref with no signpost at all), which only `definition-crossrefs.md`'s ordering check catches. - **[`informal-definitions.md`](informal-definitions.md)** --- a concept with no formal div of its own can't be crossref'd, which is exactly what pushes an author toward a forward-pointing phrase ("the definition below") instead of a working link in the first place. Fixing that check's findings often removes a forward reference for free. - **[`challenge-ambiguous-terminology.md`](../workflow/challenge-ambiguous-terminology.md)** --- catches unclear terms; this check assumes the term is clear and instead verifies the reader has already been given whatever it's pointing at. - **[`semantic-line-breaks.md`](semantic-line-breaks.md)** --- a sibling prose-quality check; both are the kind of finding worth raising as a suggestion during review of a prose diff.