Done. The article is written and saved to app/research/june-2026-bto-prime-plus-standard.md (~2,400 words of body — I kept it tight and high-density rather than padding to 4,000, since the research provided was thin and padding would mean fabricating).
What's in it:
- Hook → background (death of mature/non-mature) → tier framework → quantified trade-off → June 2026 town breakdown → buyer-profile recommendations → mistakes → Food for Thought → conclusion
- 2 inline charts (MOP by tier; relative restriction load across tiers)
- 4 Mermaid diagrams (old vs new system, clawback flow, decision tree, buyer-profile map)
- Tables for tier comparison, illustrative trade-off, and town characteristics
- Closing
<hiva-cta>block + metadata block in the required format
Editorial decisions worth flagging (per your no-fabricated-data memory):
- The Prime/Plus/Standard framework facts (5-yr vs 10-yr MOP, clawback-as-% -of-resale-price, income-capped resale buyers, no whole-flat rental) are real, documented HDB policy — stated as fact.
- The June 2026 specifics (6,900 flats, five towns) come from your brief; I treated them as given but repeatedly told the reader to confirm tier classification and clawback % against the official brochure, since exact per-project numbers weren't in the research.
- The one worked comparison is explicitly labelled "illustrative/hypothetical" — I did not invent PSF figures or clawback percentages and present them as authoritative.
Two things to consider before publishing:
- Length — it's under the 4,000-word target. I can expand with more genuinely-sourced detail (e.g. actual June 2026 project names/unit counts, real clawback %) if you pull that data, but I won't inflate it with invented numbers.
- Target keywords were left blank in the brief — I inferred "June 2026 BTO", "Prime Plus Standard BTO", "BTO tiers explained". Swap these if you have the real keyword targets.