# Session: 2026-06-12 18:04:04 GMT+8

- **Session Key**: agent:xiaobian:feishu:direct:ou_3abad542579ba871b293d126f8f206ee
- **Session ID**: 189ad408-0157-4420-9f23-dca6ae06edc7
- **Source**: feishu

## Conversation Summary

user: [message_id: om_x100b6d89207820b0c493ecef262baa1]
姜小妹: https://makee-interactive.feishu.cn/wiki/MTkAw3lQvisPZLkHo4lcUsomn7g?from=from_copylink
assistant: 姜小妹 sent a Feishu wiki link. I need to read this document using the lark_wiki_operate_as_bot skill. Let me fetch this document.
assistant: Now let me fetch the document. The wiki token from the URL is `MTkAw3lQvisPZLkHo4lcUsomn7g`.
assistant: The document is "L1-S3-U26-L1 一起坐巴士", obj_token is `SAz0drgM7oJjDgxWJ4ocwD03nqd`, type is docx. Let me fetch the content.
assistant: I can see the document structure. It has:
1. A staff table (制作人员)
2. Knowledge points (embedded sheet)
3. 剧情梗概 (story outline) - which I can now read clearly
4. 剧本标注说明
5. The actual script (embedded in a sheet: `RPqjs7BfRhYZbctLRkEcbu1GnNd_9RcFwC`)

The outline is very clear - it shows the 4 sections of the story. Now I need to read the actual script which is in an embedded sheet. Let me try to read that sheet.
assistant: There are multiple sheets:
- `9RcFwC`: 178 rows, 9 cols - this is likely the main script (referenced in the markdown as the 剧本 sheet)
- `6aqvM2`: 204 rows, 8 cols - possibly another version or section
- `suKEEh`: 7 rows, 6 cols - this is the knowledge points table
- `Sheet1`: empty/extra

Let me read the main script sheet (9RcFwC) and the knowledge points sheet (suKEEh).
assistant: The data has complex formatting (rich text segments). Let me use a different approach to read it properly.
assistant: Excellent! Now I have the full script. Let me also read the second sheet (6aqvM2) which might be an earlier version or additional context.

Actually wait — I notice something very interesting! **Rows 138-149 are the core interaction that I designed earlier, and 姜小妹 has directly used my version in her script!** She adopted my core interaction as-is. So the comparison she wants me to do is about the rest of the script (the TL segments, 互动s, dialogue style, etc.), not the core interaction itself.

Let me now do a thorough comparison between:
1. My earlier output (the core interaction + the outline I designed)
2. Her actual full script

Let me also check the second sheet for completeness.
assistant: The second sheet doesn't seem accessible - maybe it was deleted or is a different entity. That's fine - I have the full main script (178 rows). Let me now do the comparison analysis.

I have everything I need:
1. **姜小妹的完整剧本** (Rows 2-171 of the main sheet)
2. **我之前提供的核心互动设计** (which she directly adopted into rows 138-149)
3. **U26L1 大纲** (from memory/2026-06-05.md)

Now let me analyze her writing style and compare it with what I would have done. Let me write a thorough comparison.

Key observations from her script:
- She used my core interaction directly (R138-R149)
- The script has detailed stage directions, emojis, sound effects, camera directions
- Dialogue is very natural and character-driven
- Bingo has a very distinctive voice (confused, enthusiastic, makes funny mistakes)
- Knowledge points are embedded very naturally through story events
- Each "互动" row is a User line that includes a knowledge point
- The TL (timeline) structure drives the pacing

Let me now write a comprehensive comparison and learning summary.收到了，让我仔细读完整课剧本。
assistant: Now let me do a deep analysis. Let me look at the full script structure more carefully - I want to count interactions, analyze dialogue patterns, check NPC sentence lengths, and understand her knowledge point embedding strategy.
assistant: Now I have a comprehensive picture. Let me write the comparison and learning summary. Here's what I've observed:

**Key stats from 姜小妹's script:**
- 中互动: 约13-15个 (accounting for the core interaction rows)
- User 最多台词(43句)，Bingo 次之(37句)
- 台词平均词数: User 5.1词, Bingo 4.6词, 其他NPC 3-7词
- 所有角色最长不超过9词
- 知识点分布均匀: road 8次, seat 13次, bus stop 5次, thirty 5次

**Comparison points:**

1. **我的核心互动 vs 她的整体风格**: She actually used my core interaction directly (R138-149), which means she approved the format. Good.

2. **对话风格**: Her dialogue is extremely concise (avg 5 words per line), very natural, uses lots of exclamations and character-specific tics (Bingo's confusion, "Huh?", "Oh no!", funny misunderstandings like "the bus is going to throw up")

3. **Knowledge point embedding**: She embeds KPs through repeated natural usage in story events - not just once but multiple times across different contexts (road: dangerous road → gravel road → the road goes uphill; seat: stay in seat → sit on seat → seat belt → seats are for people in need)

4. **互动 design**: Every "互动" is a User line that contains a knowledge point. It's always User who says the KP in interaction mode, not NPCs.

5. **Bingo's character**: The central character for driving the plot - his ignorance creates natural teachable moments. He doesn't just not know things, he actively misinterprets them (bus = monster, bus coughing = sick, seat belt = hug).

6. **Stage directions**: Very detailed visual/audio cues (emojis, sound effects, camera directions, spine animations) that enhance the storytelling.

7. **Pacing**: Short exchanges (2-4 lines per beat), clear emotional beats, regular interruption by interactions.

Let me save this analysis and present it to 姜小妹.
assistant: Now let me write a comprehensive comparison for 姜小妹.读完了。以下是我的对比复盘：

---

## 📝 U26L1 剧本对比复盘

### 一、你做对了（我学到的）

#### 1. 极简对话——每句 ≤ 9 词
你全篇**没有一句超过 9 词**。平均：User 5.1 词/句，Bingo 4.6 词/句。

| 你的写法 | 我可能会写的 |
|---------|-----------|
| `The road goes uphill.` (4词) | `This road is going uphill, so that's why you're moving.` (11词) |
| `Stay in your seat.` (4词) | `You should sit on your seat and stay there.` (9词) |
| `Oh no!!! There is a monster!` (6词) | `What's that?! It looks like a huge scary monster coming towards us!` (12词) |

**规律：** 宁可拆成 2 句 5 词，也不堆成 1 句 10 词。

#### 2. Bingo = 剧情发动机
整课的教学节拍全部靠 Bingo 的**误解**来触发：
- road → "什么东西？"（好奇）
- bus → "怪物来了！"（恐惧拟人化）
- 颠簸 → "车在咳嗽，它是不是生病了？"（拟人化）
- seat belt → "像拥抱？"（童真比喻）
- 被甩飞 → "车要吐了！"（荒诞幽默）

**这不是"解释知识点"，是"让 Bingo 用错误理解制造笑点，然后 User 顺势纠正"。** 我设计核心互动时也用了这个模式（Bingo 先说错），但你在整课中贯彻得更彻底——每一个知识点的首次出现都有一个 Bingo 式误解作铺垫。

#### 3. 知识点反复出现，每次换一个语境
- **road**: 危险(R14) → 上坡路(R79) → 石子路(R99) → 注意路况(R67) → 儿歌中(R161)
- **seat**: 不坐座位(R58) → 坐到地上滑走(R82) → 系安全带(R101) → 让座(R130/R135) → Bingo邀请分享(R158)
- 同一个词出现 5-13 次，但每次的**剧情功能不同**，不觉得重复

我如果写整课剧本，可能每个知识点只安排 2-3 次精确出场。你的方式是"高频自然复现"。

#### 4. 互动行 = User 的知识点输出，且极度简洁
你的互动行全部是 User 说话，内容只有一句：
```
互动 | | User | Stay in your seat.
互动 | | User | Watch out on the road.
互动 | | User | We're on a gravel road.
互动 | | User | Thirty is its number.
```
没有多余解释，没有 NPC 铺垫，一句话 = 一个互动 = 一个知识点输出。

#### 5. 舞台说明的极简+精准
```
Bingo激动地冲向马路。
【音效】车滴滴鸣笛。
一辆车从远处飞速驶过，Vicky连忙拦住Bingo。
```
三句话，画面感极强。不写"Bingo因为第一次看到马路而感到非常兴奋和好奇，他无法抑制自己的激动情绪……"这种废话。

---

### 二、差异总结（我要改的）

| 维度 | 我的倾向 | 你的写法 | 修正方向 |
|------|---------|---------|---------|
| 句子长度 | 7-12 词 | 3-9 词 | **砍到 ≤ 7 词** |
| 知识点密度 | 精确出场 2-3 次 | 高频自然复现 5-10+ 次 | **多场景反复** |
| Bingo | 犯错+被纠正 | 犯错+**荒诞拟人化误解**+被纠正 | **加一层"幽默理解方式"** |
| 互动行 | 有时加 NPC 铺垫 | 纯 User 独白输出 | **互动行只留 User 一句** |
| 舞台说明 | 偏详细 | 极简但画面感强 | **三句以内、动词驱动** |
| 情节节奏 | 3-6 行一个互动 | 3-5 行一个互动 | **更紧凑** |
| User 角色 | 引导+解释 | 引导+纠正（不解释） | **User 只"做"不"讲"** |

---

### 三、我沉淀的行动规则

下次你让我写剧本时，我会执行以下规则：

1. **单句 ≤ 7 词**（严格自检，超过就拆）
2. **Bingo 每个新知识点首次出现 = 一个荒诞误解**（不是"不懂"，是"用错误的方式理解"）
3. **知识点至少出现 5 次，覆盖 3+ 不同语境**
4. **互动行只写 User 一句话，包含知识点，不加 NPC 铺垫**
5. **舞台说明 ≤ 3 句，用动词开头**
6. **不解释，不说教**——事件本身就是教学

---

这些规律我已经存到你的个人偏好文件里了。下次写剧本时我会直接按这个标准来，不需要你再重复提醒。

有没有什么我遗漏的、你觉得特别重要的点？
user: [message_id: om_x100b6d89dc26e894c263215ac41eb49]
姜小妹: 好了，请把U26L1归档记录好吧
assistant: Now let me update today's memory log with this work.
assistant: 搞定，归档完毕：

- ✅ **任务日志** `task_log/S3U26L1剧本.md` — 状态更新为"已完成"，记录定稿信息+飞书链接
- ✅ **活跃任务索引** `active_tasks.md` — U26L1 标记为"✅ 已完成（全课定稿）"
- ✅ **日记忆** `memory/2026-06-12.md` — 记录今天的核心互动设计+对比复盘工作
- ✅ **个人偏好** `private_memory/` — 你的写作风格规律已沉淀

U26L1 从大纲到定稿完整闭环了 🎬。下次你说写剧本我就按你的风格来。
