AI for Checking Lipogram Constraints

As of 2026-10-19 · the AZET team. We operate azet.io and wrote this educational guide for fun and reference; all sample passages and revision decisions are hypothetical.

For this exercise, a lipogram means a passage written without a chosen letter. The task looks simple: find the forbidden character and remove it. The writing problem is harder. A replacement can satisfy the letter rule while changing who acts, when something happens, or what the sentence means.

Give AI a bounded editorial role. Ask it to identify suspect words and suggest alternatives. Keep the actual character check separate, so an attractive rewrite does not count as proof that the constraint has been met.

Define exactly what the rule covers

Our hypothetical brief bans the English letter e, including uppercase E, from the story passage. The title, author notes, and this article are outside the exercise. Spaces, punctuation, and other letters are allowed. The sample uses plain English text without accented characters.

That scope matters. A clean paragraph beneath a title containing the banned letter fails if the title is included. The same paragraph passes a narrower rule that excludes it. Neither result is meaningful until the boundary is written down.

For a longer piece, state how you will treat quoted speech, chapter labels, and proper names. If you want accented forms to count as the same letter, explicitly add that requirement. Do not silently change the rule during revision because a character name becomes inconvenient.

Work from a small, inspectable passage

Consider this original hypothetical draft:

At dusk, Mira left a note by the gate. A small fox sat nearby.

Under the stated rule, the suspect words are “left,” “note,” “the,” “gate,” and “nearby.” Each contains one lowercase e. The passage therefore offers five individual characters to inspect, not merely a vague finding that the prose needs revision.

An authored illustrative alternative is:

At dusk, Mira put a scrap by a wall. A small fox sat close by.

This version still contains e in “close.” It also changes the gate into a wall and makes the note's written nature less explicit. There are two separate problems: a remaining letter violation and a loss of story information.

A more deliberate candidate is:

At dusk, Mira put a short missive by a port. A small fox sat not far off.

“Missive” still contains e, and “port” may create an unwanted setting association. A vocabulary swap is not automatically progress. Rejecting such candidates is part of the exercise rather than a reason to loosen the original brief unnoticed.

Revise meaning before polishing sound

Now specify the essential meaning: Mira deposits a written message beside an entrance, at dusk; a fox remains nearby. The exact entrance type can change, but the writing must remain explicit.

One hypothetical revision is:

At dusk, Mira put a scrap of writing by a door. A small fox sat not far off.

Inspect the words character by character. The sentence preserves the chosen essentials, though “scrap of writing” has a different texture from “note.” That awkwardness is a human editorial decision. You may accept it, rewrite the action more broadly, or decide that the exercise needs another attempt.

The useful question is whether the constraint produces prose you want to keep. Technical compliance is one criterion, not the entire judgment.

Ask for findings you can reproduce

Use this prompt on a clearly delimited passage:

Review only the text between START and END.
The forbidden characters are lowercase e and uppercase E.
List every word containing either character, preserving its spelling.
For repeated words, identify the sentence and occurrence separately.
Suggest two revisions that preserve the supplied meaning requirements.
Do not declare either revision compliant without showing a fresh scan.
Separate letter findings from observations about meaning and rhythm.
START
[paste the passage]
END

For an independent human check, use a text editor's literal search on the exact final passage. Search for e and E, or enable an explicitly case-insensitive search. Highlight results and inspect the selected scope. A search across the entire document will also find letters in your instructions and commentary.

After any edit, repeat the scan. A last-minute change from “not far off” to “nearby” restores a violation even though the earlier draft was clean. Keep the accepted passage and the rule together so another reader can reproduce the check.

FAQ

Why involve AI if literal search can find the letter?

Search answers the narrow character question. The editorial exercise concerns alternatives that preserve meaning. Ask AI for candidate phrasing and explanations of losses, then use search to check the accepted text. Neither activity replaces your reading of the passage.

What if a proper name contains the banned letter?

Choose before drafting whether names receive an exception. If they do, document the exact allowed names and check everything else. If they do not, rename the fictional character or choose a different constraint. Hidden exceptions make the result difficult to assess.

Does a clean scan mean the writing is finished?

No. Read for clarity, tense, speaker identity, and unwanted changes in tone. A sentence can obey the rule while becoming confusing or unappealing. Keep the clean result as a checkpoint and continue revising if the prose needs work.

Product context

The workflow is a general illustrative exercise, not a documented AZET capability. The product baseline comes from our maker introduction dated October 3, 2026, which described an AI assistant waitlist. It does not establish today's live availability or a specialized text-checking feature.

For the AZET waitlist, visit azet.io.