Narrative Integrity as a Discipline

This paper introduces fablehesion — a neoclassical compound from Latin fabula ("story") and haerere ("to stick") — as a term for the proactive discipline of binding narrative to verifiable truth.

Abstract. This paper argues that no existing English word occupies this semantic position, and that the absence has measurable consequences: a practice without a name cannot be taught, required, or enforced. The paper presents the Chain of Authenticity, a five-link diagnostic framework for evaluating narrative integrity across any domain — commercial, institutional, legal, or political. Each link identifies a necessary condition: internal coherence, evidentiary capability, narrator volition, audience adhesion, and outcome alignment. A break at any link compromises the entire chain. The framework is grounded in the classical Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric), in Aristotle's rhetorical triad, in Fisher's narrative paradigm, and in Toulmin's argumentation model. Five case studies — Theranos, Patagonia, the Iraq WMD narrative, Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol response, and Boeing's 737 MAX crisis — demonstrate the framework's diagnostic utility in identifying where and why narratives fail or hold. The paper concludes with a seven-step method for applied fablehesive analysis and a complete morphological paradigm establishing the term's viability as a productive English lexeme. Twenty-six annotated academic and primary sources are provided.

I. The Lexical Gap

English has words for lying. It has words for truth-telling. It has no word for the proactive, affirmative practice of binding truth to narrative.

We can say someone is honest. We can say a campaign is authentic. We can say a brand has integrity. But none of these terms describe the discipline — the deliberate, repeatable, verifiable process of constructing communication that adheres to observable reality and persists because of that adherence.

The absence is not trivial. A practice without a name cannot be taught. It cannot be measured. It cannot be required in a contract, cited in a brief, or demanded in a boardroom. It remains invisible — the way grammar is invisible to fluent speakers — until someone names it.¹

Fablehesion is that name.

II. Definition and Etymology

fab·le·he·sion   /ˈfeɪ.bəl.ˈhiː.ʒən/

n. The measurable capacity of a narrative to maintain truth-binding. The discipline of constructing communication that adheres to verifiable reality and persists because of that adherence.

Formation

A neoclassical compound:

• Fable — from Latin fabula ("story, tale"), from Proto-Indo-European *bhā- ("to speak")². Not in the modern diminutive sense of "fictional tale," but in the classical sense: narrative as a vehicle for truth.
• Hesion — from Latin haerere ("to stick, to cling"), through the nominal suffix -haesio(n-).³ The same root and formation that gives English adhesion (ad + haerere), cohesion (co + haerere). Traces to a Proto-Indo-European root shared with Greek, but the proximate source is Latin.

Fable + hesion = story-binding. "Stick to your story."

The compound follows established English patterns: television (far + seeing), adhesion (to + sticking), cohesion (together + sticking).⁴

The Complete Morphological Paradigm

A neologism's viability as a word — as opposed to a marketing slogan — is measured by its capacity for productive morphology: can it conjugate, derive, and inflect like a native English word? Fablehesion passes this test without exception:

This is a complete, inflectable, derivable lexeme — constructed with the same morphological rigor that governs every word admitted to a dictionary. It fills a gap that no existing word occupies.

III. The Chain of Authenticity

The Chain of Authenticity is the diagnostic instrument of fablehesive analysis. It identifies five necessary conditions for narrative integrity. A break in any link compromises the entire chain.

Link 1: Story-to-Self Coherence

Does the narrative align internally?

A fablehesive narrative must be logically consistent. Its claims must not contradict each other. Its structure must hold under scrutiny. This is not a test of whether the narrative is true — it is a test of whether it is possible. A story that contradicts itself cannot be true regardless of evidence.

Healthy indicators:

• Claims are internally consistent across all channels and timeframes
• The narrative does not require the audience to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously
• The story's structure survives restatement — it can be summarized without distortion

Broken indicators:

• Contradictions between what is said publicly and what is documented privately
• Claims that require impossible timelines or logical impossibilities
• A narrative that changes shape depending on audience without acknowledging the change

Link 2: Teller-to-Story Capability

Does the communicator command the evidence?

It is not enough for a narrative to be coherent. The person or institution telling the story must possess the evidence to support it. This is the link between assertion and demonstration. A claim without evidence is not fablehesive — it is speculation presented as fact.

Healthy indicators:

• Claims can be substantiated on demand
• Evidence exists independent of the narrator's assertion
• The communicator can answer "How do you know?" without deflection

Broken indicators:

• Claims that rely entirely on the narrator's authority ("Trust me")
• Evidence that is promised but never produced
• Inability to distinguish between what is known and what is believed

Link 3: Teller-to-Story Volition

Does the communicator believe the narrative?

A spokesperson reading a script they know to be false may satisfy links 1 and 2 temporarily — the narrative may be coherent, the evidence may exist — but without genuine commitment to truth, the narrative will eventually fail. Volition is the link between capability and conviction. It answers: "Does the teller own this story?"

Healthy indicators:

• The communicator's actions align with the narrative over time
• They defend the narrative under pressure rather than abandoning it for convenience
• Their investment in the story is evident beyond the transactional moment

Broken indicators:

• Visible discomfort or evasion when pressed on specifics
• The narrative is abandoned the moment it becomes inconvenient
• Private communications contradict public statements

Link 4: Audience-to-Story Adhesion

Does the audience recognize the truth?

A fablehesive narrative earns retention. It persists in memory not through repetition or manipulation, but because it corresponds to something the audience can verify against their own experience or available evidence. Adhesion is organic — it is what happens when a true narrative meets a prepared audience.

Healthy indicators:

• The narrative is repeated by the audience in their own words (not parroted)
• It survives contact with competing narratives
• Audience trust increases over time rather than requiring constant renewal

Broken indicators:

• Adhesion maintained only through volume (advertising saturation) rather than substance
• Audience loyalty that collapses upon exposure to contrary evidence
• The narrative requires active suppression of alternatives to persist

Link 5: Story-to-Outcome Alignment

Did the narrative achieve its stated purpose?

The final link closes the chain. A fablehesive narrative is not merely true and persistent — it is effective. It accomplishes what it set out to accomplish, and that accomplishment is measurable. This is the accountability link.

Healthy indicators:

• Stated objectives are met within stated timeframes
• Success metrics were defined before the campaign, not retrofitted afterward
• The outcome can be attributed to the narrative rather than to unrelated factors

Broken indicators:

• Goals redefined after the fact to match whatever happened
• Success claimed on the basis of activity (impressions, reach) rather than outcome
• No mechanism exists to measure whether the narrative worked

The Chain as Diagnostic

The power of the Chain is differential diagnosis. When communication fails, the Chain identifies where it failed:

• A political speech that is internally coherent (link 1) but delivered by a speaker who does not believe it (link 3) will eventually fail at links 4 and 5.
• A brand campaign that achieves audience adhesion (link 4) through manufactured consensus rather than evidence will collapse when the evidence is demanded (link 2).
• A legal argument with strong evidence (link 2) and genuine conviction (link 3) may still fail if the narrative is structurally incoherent (link 1) — the jury cannot follow what they cannot understand.

This is not a metaphor. It is a diagnostic instrument.

IV. The Classical Inheritance

Fablehesion did not emerge from nothing. It inherits from a tradition that is 2,400 years old.

The classical Trivium — Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric — was the foundational curriculum of Western education from antiquity through the Renaissance.⁵ It taught students to construct (grammar), verify (logic), and communicate (rhetoric) knowledge in sequence. Fablehesive analysis follows this same sequence, applied specifically to narrative integrity:

This is not an appropriation. It is an acknowledgment. The Trivium identified the components of sound communication — as Aristotle, Toulmin, and Fisher each demonstrated in their own frameworks.⁶⁷⁸ Fablehesion synthesizes them into a single diagnostic discipline and applies them specifically to the problem of narrative integrity — a problem that the classical tradition recognized but never named as a standalone practice.

The contribution is the synthesis and the specificity: not "how to communicate well" in general, but "how to verify, construct, and maintain communication that is bound to truth" in particular — a synthesis anticipated by Perelman's audience-centered argumentation and Quintilian's insistence that the orator be a person of genuine conviction.⁹¹⁰

V. The Method

Fablehesive analysis is a protocol. It can be applied to any narrative artifact: a brand campaign, a legal brief, a political platform, a corporate disclosure, an organizational mission statement.

Step 1: Identify the Narrative

Define the communication being analyzed. What is the story being told? By whom? To whom? Through what channels? For what stated purpose?

Document the narrative as a set of explicit claims. Strip away tone, design, and delivery. Reduce it to its assertions.

Step 2: Test Structural Coherence (Link 1)

Examine the claims for internal consistency:

• Do any claims contradict each other?
• Does the narrative require the audience to believe incompatible things?
• Can the narrative be restated in simpler terms without losing meaning — or does simplification expose contradictions?
• Is the timeline of claims physically possible?

If the narrative fails here, it is not fablehesive regardless of what follows. An incoherent story cannot be true.

Step 3: Test Evidentiary Capability (Link 2)

For each claim, ask: What evidence supports this?

• Is the evidence independent of the narrator's assertion?
• Is the evidence accessible, or must the audience take the narrator's word?
• Does the evidence exist now, or is it promised for some future date?
• Is the evidence proportional to the magnitude of the claim?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane claims require mundane evidence. The absence of proportional evidence is a Link 2 failure — a principle rooted in the Yale studies on source credibility.¹¹

Step 4: Test Narrator Commitment (Link 3)

Examine the relationship between the narrator and the narrative:

• Does the narrator's behavior align with the narrative over time?
• Are there private contradictions to public statements?
• Does the narrator defend the narrative under pressure, or abandon it when challenged?
• Is there evidence that the narrator benefits from the narrative being false?

Link 3 failures are the most dangerous because they are often invisible until crisis. A narrator without volition is a liability — they will abandon the narrative at the first sign of cost.

Step 5: Test Audience Adhesion (Link 4)

Examine how the narrative performs in the world:

• Does the audience retain the narrative without constant reinforcement?
• Can audience members restate the narrative in their own words?
• Does the narrative survive competition with contradictory information?
• Is adhesion achieved through substance or through volume?

A narrative that requires constant repetition to persist is not fablehesive — it is advertising. Fablehesive narratives earn retention through substance, not through manufactured volume.¹⁴

Step 6: Test Outcome Alignment (Link 5)

Examine results:

• Were success metrics defined before the narrative was deployed?
• Did the narrative achieve those metrics?
• Can the outcome be attributed to the narrative rather than to external factors?
• Does the communicator acknowledge failures honestly, or redefine success after the fact?

Step 7: Diagnose and Prescribe

Identify which links are intact and which are broken. The diagnosis determines the prescription:

• Link 1 failure: Restructure the narrative. The problem is architectural.
• Link 2 failure: Gather evidence or withdraw the claim. The problem is evidentiary.
• Link 3 failure: Change the narrator or change the narrative. The problem is human.
• Link 4 failure: Reexamine delivery, audience assumptions, or competitive context. The problem is communicative.
• Link 5 failure: Reexamine whether the narrative was ever capable of producing the desired outcome. The problem may be strategic.

VI. Applied Domains

Agency

For clients, fablehesive analysis replaces the subjective with the diagnostic. Instead of "Does this campaign feel right?" the question becomes "Which links in the Chain of Authenticity are we satisfying, and which are we neglecting?" The distinction between indifference to truth and commitment to it is the diagnostic threshold.¹²

• Brand development — Building narratives from evidence outward rather than aspiration downward. A fablehesive brand begins with what is true about the organization.
• Campaign auditing — Diagnosing why existing communication is failing. Is it a structural problem (link 1)? An evidence gap (link 2)? A credibility problem (link 3)?
• Crisis communication — When a narrative collapses, the Chain identifies which link broke first. The prescription follows the diagnosis.

Legal

In litigation, narrative construction is the primary mechanism of persuasion.¹⁷ Fablehesive analysis provides:

• Case narrative evaluation — Is the story we're telling the jury internally coherent? Can every claim be substantiated? Is our client committed to the truth of the narrative?
• Opposing narrative diagnosis — Which link in opposing counsel's chain is weakest? That is where cross-examination should focus.
• Contract and disclosure review — Are the representations in this document fablehesive? Will they survive scrutiny at links 1 through 5?

Political

Political communication is where fablehesive failure is most visible and most consequential — as Arendt argued, factual truth is uniquely vulnerable to organized political narrative, and as Stanley demonstrated, propaganda operates by undermining the very capacity for rational discourse:¹³¹⁸

• Platform analysis — Is the candidate's platform internally coherent (link 1)? Supported by evidence (link 2)? Genuinely believed (link 3)?
• Accountability journalism — The Chain goes beyond fact-checking (which addresses only link 2) to examine structure, volition, adhesion, and outcome.
• Institutional trust — Why does public trust erode? Almost always, a link 3 or link 5 failure: the institution does not believe its own narrative, or it does not produce the outcomes it promised.

Academic

• Research communication — Is the public-facing summary fablehesive to the underlying data? Academic misrepresentation is typically a link 2 failure — the narrative exceeds the evidence.
• Pedagogical tool — The Chain is teachable as a critical thinking framework in communication, rhetoric, journalism, and media literacy courses — consistent with Bruner's argument that narrative is a fundamental mode of cognition.¹⁵
• Theoretical contribution — Narrative integrity as a measurable, diagnosable property fills a gap between truthfulness (a property of statements) and persuasiveness (a property of delivery).¹⁶

Corporate

• Earnings calls and disclosures — Are forward-looking narratives grounded in evidence (link 2) or in optimism?
• Internal alignment — Do employees believe the organizational narrative (link 3)? If not, it will leak.
• ESG and sustainability claims — Perhaps the most active domain for fablehesive failure today. Companies claiming commitments without evidence or genuine investment face inevitable exposure.

VII. Case Studies

Theranos (2003–2018)

Links 1, 2, and 3 — catastrophic failure

Elizabeth Holmes told a story: Theranos could run hundreds of blood tests from a single finger prick.¹⁹ As Carreyrou documented in Bad Blood, the narrative was structurally coherent for a time — the claims did not initially contradict each other.

Link 2 (Capability): The technology did not work. Evidence was fabricated, faked, or withheld. When the Wall Street Journal investigated, there was nothing behind the narrative.

Link 3 (Volition): Holmes continued promoting the narrative long after she knew it was false. Internal whistleblowers were silenced. The narrator was committed to the appearance of truth, not truth itself.

Link 4 (Adhesion): Notably strong — $9 billion valuation. This demonstrates a critical insight: adhesion is not evidence of truth. A narrative can achieve powerful adhesion while links 1–3 are broken. Adhesion built on false foundations always collapses — the question is only when.

Lesson: Fablehesive failure is not always immediately visible. A broken chain can support weight temporarily. The diagnostic value is in identifying the break before collapse.

Patagonia — "Don't Buy This Jacket" (2011)

All five links intact

On Black Friday 2011, Patagonia ran a full-page New York Times ad urging customers not to buy its products.²⁰ The copy explained the environmental cost of manufacturing and promoted repair and reuse.

Link 1 (Coherence): Counterintuitive but structurally sound. Telling customers not to buy is coherent if the company's mission is environmental sustainability over growth. The ad was consistent with decades of prior communication.

Link 2 (Capability): Supply chain audits published. Repair services offered. Environmental grants funded. The claims were substantiated by observable action.

Link 3 (Volition): CEO Yvon Chouinard eventually gave the company to an environmental trust. This is not performance — it is conviction.

Link 5 (Outcome): Revenue increased. The narrative deepened loyalty among values-aligned customers while generating earned media.

Lesson: A fablehesive narrative can be counterintuitive, surprising, even paradoxical — as long as the chain is intact. Truth does not require predictability.

Iraq War — "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (2003)

Link 2 failure, cascading to links 4 and 5

The narrative: Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction requiring preemptive military action. The Duelfer Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee later confirmed that the evidence did not support this claim.²¹

Link 2 (Capability): Intelligence was cherry-picked, misrepresented, or fabricated. Colin Powell's UN presentation included claims sourced from a single unreliable informant. The evidence did not exist in the form presented.

Link 3 (Volition): Fragmented. Some narrators believed the claims. Others knew the evidence was insufficient but presented certainty anyway. This fragmentation is itself a red flag.

Link 4 (Adhesion): Initially strong — public support for the war was high. But adhesion achieved through a link 2 failure is inherently unstable. When no WMDs were found, adhesion reversed into distrust.

Link 5 (Outcome): The stated objective (disarming Iraq) could not be achieved because the premise was false. When the narrative is built on false evidence, no outcome can satisfy it.

Lesson: A chain with a broken link 2 may achieve temporary adhesion and even produce action — but it cannot produce legitimate outcomes. Link 2 failures are time bombs.

Johnson & Johnson — Tylenol Recall (1982)

Rapid chain repair under crisis conditions

Seven people died from cyanide-laced Tylenol. J&J faced an existential crisis — one Rehak called "the recall that started them all."²²

Link 1 (Coherence): Simple, structurally flawless: "Nothing matters more than public safety. We are pulling every bottle from every shelf immediately."

Link 2 (Capability): 31 million bottles recalled — $100 million in product. The evidence of commitment was the act itself.

Link 3 (Volition): CEO James Burke contradicted the FBI, contradicted his own board, chose safety over revenue publicly and irreversibly.

Link 5 (Outcome): Market share recovered within a year. Tamper-evident packaging became federal law. The outcome aligned with the narrative.

Lesson: A fablehesive crisis response succeeds because it does what it says. Words without corresponding behavior break link 2 immediately.

Boeing — 737 MAX (2018–2019)

Link 5 failure exposing latent link 3 failure

Boeing's narrative: the 737 MAX was safe, MCAS was minor, additional training was unnecessary. The congressional investigation and Gates's investigative reporting told a different story.²³

Link 2 (Capability): Engineering data existed — but was selective. Internal communications revealed employees knew about MCAS risks. Evidence was withheld from regulators.

Link 3 (Volition): Already broken before the crashes. Boeing believed its schedule and cost narrative, not its safety narrative. Safety communication was instrumental, not volitional.

Link 5 (Outcome): 346 people died. The outcome exposed the latent link 3 failure: the actual purpose was never safety but delivery timeline.

Lesson: Link 5 failures often expose earlier, hidden failures. When the story says "safety" but behavior says "schedule," the behavior is the truth.

Fablehesion's Own Brands

Self-application — honest assessment

A framework that cannot be applied to itself is not credible. Fablehesion serves a portfolio of brands — Nursnook, Nurshaus Foundation, The Nook, Magnificvm, Nhaus MX — each built from narrative outward.

Link 1 (Coherence): The nomenclature ecosystem (14 proprietary terms) is internally consistent. Each term derives from observable etymology, serves a specific function, relates logically to the others.

Link 2 (Capability): Every claim is demonstrable. The trademark is filed. The domains are owned. The sites are built. The Foundation is incorporated.

Link 3 (Volition): The Founder is sole operator, sole investor, sole builder. There is no daylight between narrator and narrative.

Link 4 (Adhesion): Nascent. The brands are pre-launch. Adhesion is being tested through content publication. Honest assessment: this link is incomplete.

Link 5 (Outcome): Also nascent. The stated objective (beta launch November 2026) has not yet been achieved. Testable within the year.

Lesson: Fablehesive analysis does not require perfection. It requires honesty about which links are satisfied and which are in progress. Acknowledging incompleteness is itself fablehesive.

VIII. What Fablehesion Is Not

Clarity requires boundaries:

• Not a guarantee of success. A perfectly fablehesive narrative can still fail in the market. Truth is necessary but not sufficient.
• Not a moral system. Fablehesion diagnoses narrative integrity. It does not determine whether a purpose is good or evil. A fablehesive argument for a harmful cause is still fablehesive — it is the cause that is wrong, not the communication.
• Not a formula. There is no equation that produces a "truth score." Fablehesive analysis is qualitative, diagnostic, and contextual. It requires human judgment at every step.
• Not a replacement for fact-checking. Fact-checking addresses link 2 only. Fablehesive analysis encompasses structure, conviction, adhesion, and outcome as well.
• Not an academic theory awaiting peer review. It is a practitioner's framework — developed in the field, by an agency, for commercial, legal, and cultural applications. Academic validation is welcome but not required for the framework to be useful.

IX. The Movement

A word enters the language when people need it. The test is not whether linguists approve it but whether practitioners reach for it.

Fablehesion fills a gap. When a journalist wants to say "this brand's communication is not merely truthful but structurally, evidentially, and demonstrably sound" — there is no single term for that. When a lawyer wants to describe the quality of a narrative that is both true and persuasive and verifiable — there is no word. When an agency wants to differentiate between a campaign that is merely creative and one that is grounded — there is no professional vocabulary for the distinction.

The word exists now. Its adoption depends on its utility.

What we do not claim: that the word is established, that the framework is validated by longitudinal study, or that the concept is without precedent. What we do claim: that the gap is real, the word is well-formed, and the framework is immediately applicable.

The rest is practice.

References

1. ↑ Levy, Robert I. Tahitians: Mind and Experience in the Society Islands. University of Chicago Press, 1973. Introduces "hypocognition" — the cognitive consequence of lacking a word for a concept. See also: Lyons, John. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1995 — formal treatment of lexical gaps.
2. ↑ Watkins, Calvert (ed.). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011. PIE root *bhā- ("to speak") → Latin fabula.
3. ↑ Lewis, Charlton T. & Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary. Clarendon Press, 1879. Available at Perseus Digital Library. Entries for fabula and haerere.
4. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary. Entries: "adhesion," "cohesion." Oxford University Press. oed.com. Traces the -haesio(n-) suffix from Latin haerere through English formation patterns.
5. ↑ Sayers, Dorothy L. "The Lost Tools of Learning." Paper presented at Oxford, 1947. Available at multiple archives. See also: Joseph, Sister Miriam. The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric. 1937. Repr. Paul Dry Books, 2002.
6. ↑ Aristotle. Rhetoric. c. 350 BCE. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Available at MIT Classics. The origin of ethos (speaker credibility → Link 3), logos (logical argument → Links 1 & 2), and pathos (audience response → Link 4).
7. ↑ Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1958. The Toulmin model (claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, qualifier) is the closest existing framework to Links 1 and 2.
8. ↑ Fisher, Walter R. "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument." Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1–22. The single most directly relevant academic source for the Chain of Authenticity.
9. ↑ Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. 1958. Trans. John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver. University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Audience-centered argumentation theory — directly relevant to Link 4.
10. ↑ Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. c. 95 CE. Trans. H. E. Butler. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1920. The insistence that the ideal orator must be a "good man speaking well" (vir bonus dicendi peritus) anticipates Link 3.
11. ↑ Hovland, Carl I., Irving L. Janis & Harold H. Kelley. Communication and Persuasion. Yale University Press, 1953. Established that persuasion depends on perceived expertise (Link 2) and perceived trustworthiness (Link 3).
12. ↑ Frankfurt, Harry G. On Bullshit. Princeton University Press, 2005. Frankfurt's distinction: a liar respects truth (by deliberately opposing it); a bullshitter is indifferent to truth. Fablehesion is the disciplined antithesis of bullshit.
13. ↑ Arendt, Hannah. "Truth and Politics." The New Yorker, February 25, 1967. Repr. in Between Past and Future. Penguin, 2006. Factual truth is fragile in political contexts — it can be destroyed by organized lying.
14. ↑ Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Rev. ed., Harper Business, 2006. Social proof, commitment/consistency, and authority as mechanisms of adhesion.
15. ↑ Bruner, Jerome. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press, 1986. Narrative is a fundamental mode of human cognition — not a literary decoration but how people make sense of experience.
16. ↑ Sachs, Jonah. Winning the Story Wars. Harvard Business Review Press, 2012. The case that brands must be truthful narrators to survive in a transparent media environment.
17. ↑ Meyer, Philip N. Storytelling for Lawyers. Oxford University Press, 2014. How narrative construction operates in legal persuasion.
18. ↑ Stanley, Jason. How Propaganda Works. Princeton University Press, 2015. How democratic ideals are undermined by flawed political narratives. See also: Coombs, W. Timothy. Ongoing Crisis Communication. 4th ed., SAGE Publications, 2014 — Situational Crisis Communication Theory.
19. ↑ Carreyrou, John. Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Alfred A. Knopf, 2018. The definitive account of Theranos. Source for all factual claims in the Theranos case study.
20. ↑ Chouinard, Yvon. Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. Rev. ed., Penguin Books, 2016. See also: Patagonia. "Don't Buy This Jacket." Full-page advertisement, The New York Times, November 25, 2011.
21. ↑ Duelfer, Charles A. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD. Central Intelligence Agency, 2004. Available at cia.gov. See also: U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. July 2004.
22. ↑ Rehak, Judith. "Tylenol Made a Hero of Johnson & Johnson: The Recall That Started Them All." The New York Times, March 23, 2002. nytimes.com. Factual details: 31 million bottles, $100 million cost, market share recovery within one year.
23. ↑ U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Final Committee Report: The Design, Development & Certification of the Boeing 737 MAX. September 2020. transportation.house.gov. See also: Gates, Dominic. "Flawed analysis, failed oversight." The Seattle Times, March 17, 2019. seattletimes.com.

Fablehesion. Stick to your story.