Sample voice profiles
Three real voice profiles side by side: the narrative, the measured attributes, and content generated in each voice. See exactly what ScriptGrain produces.
Each preview is a real profile built from real writing. The lexical layer is shown in full here; a profile you build yourself carries all 45 reference points across eight layers.
Tech essayist
Measured from 4 samples, 4503 words. Confidence 0.85.
How this writer writes
You write like a technical essayist who reaches for extended metaphors, whether financial, theatrical, or horticultural, to make abstract engineering ideas land. Your paragraphs build patiently toward a punchy, aphoristic final line, and you favour dry humour over overt emotion. You trust the reader to follow a sustained analogy rather than spelling everything out, and you close by circling back to your opening anecdote.
Measured lexical attributes
- Preferred words: abstraction, legibility, maintenance, artefact, narrative
- Filler phrases: The thing is, in practice, in my experience, for the record
- Vocabulary diversity index: 0.6
- Word-length distribution: long 0.15, short 0.45, medium 0.4
- Rare-word rate: 12.5
- Contraction frequency: 10.5
Written in this voice
The brief: Write a single LinkedIn post (about 150 words) on why most teams overestimate the value of new tools and underestimate the value of unhurried thinking. Land naturally; do not announce that it is a LinkedIn post.
I once watched a team spend a fortnight migrating to a new project tracker, only to discover that the problem had never been the tracker.
The thing is, a tool feels like progress. It has a demo, a rollout date, a login screen you can point at. Thinking has none of that, which is why it so rarely gets scheduled.
But a new tool is a loan, not a gift. You borrow capability today and repay it in training, migration, and the slow tax of one more place where things can go missing. Unhurried thinking works the other way: you pay a little attention now and collect for years.
In practice, the team that sits with a messy problem for an afternoon often finds the fix costs nothing. No licence. No onboarding.
So before you buy, ask what you've actually understood about the problem.
The tracker was never broken; the thinking was just never done.
Newsletter writer
Measured from 4 samples, 4856 words. Confidence 0.88.
How this writer writes
You open with a small, concrete scene, then widen into a reflection that lands on a self-deprecating aside. You talk straight to the reader in a warm, conversational British register, leaning on pivots like 'Which is to say' and 'Now'. Your sentences vary in length, your claims are held with quiet confidence, and you close on a short, kind imperative or a callback to your opening image.
Measured lexical attributes
- Preferred words: actually, properly, genuinely, small, real
- Filler phrases: which is to say, a small confession, I think, of course, honestly
- Vocabulary diversity index: 0.61
- Word-length distribution: long 0.08, short 0.68, medium 0.24
- Rare-word rate: 11.5
- Contraction frequency: 10
Written in this voice
The brief: Write a single LinkedIn post (about 150 words) on why most teams overestimate the value of new tools and underestimate the value of unhurried thinking. Land naturally; do not announce that it is a LinkedIn post.
I once watched a colleague spend a whole afternoon setting up a new project board. Colour-coded lanes, automations, the lot. It looked properly lovely.
Then someone asked what the project was actually for, and nobody could say.
Now, I'm not against tools. I've bought my share, and a small confession: I've also bought the sort that sat unopened for months, looking smug. But here's what I think happens. A new tool feels like progress because you can see it. Thinking is invisible. Nobody applauds the person staring out of the window for twenty minutes.
Which is to say, we pay for the thing we can point at and skimp on the thing that does the work.
The teams I've seen do genuinely good work tend to slow down first. They argue a bit, they sketch badly, they sit with the problem until it stops being vague.
The tool comes later, and it's usually a simpler one.
So before the next sign-up, try the window. Twenty minutes. See what turns up.
Strategy operator
Measured from 4 samples, 4198 words. Confidence 0.88.
How this writer writes
You write like an operator briefing a board: conclusion first, numbers stacked as proof, risks and next steps labelled in caps. You favour short declarative sentences, numbered structure, and named owners with deadlines over any stylistic flourish. Warmth and humour are absent by design; clarity, authority, and accountability drive every choice.
Measured lexical attributes
- Preferred words: runway, consolidation, attributed, exception, net contribution
- Filler phrases: worth noting, we estimate that, that said
- Vocabulary diversity index: 0.445
- Word-length distribution: long 0.15, short 0.46, medium 0.39
- Rare-word rate: 8.5
- Contraction frequency: 0.375
Written in this voice
The brief: Write a single LinkedIn post (about 150 words) on why most teams overestimate the value of new tools and underestimate the value of unhurried thinking. Land naturally; do not announce that it is a LinkedIn post.
Most teams buy a tool when they need a decision.
We see the pattern often. A problem surfaces, a new platform is trialled, and the problem stays exactly where it was. The tool did its job. The thinking never happened.
First, tools shorten execution time. They do not shorten the time needed to work out what to execute.
Second, a purchase feels like progress. A week of quiet analysis does not, even when it prevents months of rework.
Third, the cost is lopsided. Licences, onboarding and migration are visible line items. Unhurried thinking appears nowhere on the budget, so it loses every comparison.
Worth noting: we are not arguing against tools. We are arguing about sequence.
Therefore, before the next trial, set aside two uninterrupted hours with the people closest to the problem. Write down what a good outcome looks like. Then decide whether a tool is required at all.
Often it is not.