There’s a verb test I use in the journal article preparation workshop. Take the sentence where you say what your paper does, and look at the main verb.
“Explores.” “Examines.” “Traces.” “Describes.”
These verbs usually describe a project.
“Argues.” “Reveals.” “Challenges.” “Complicates.”
These verbs are more likely to introduce a claim.
This sits near The so-what problem, at a smaller level. The so-what question asks why the work matters. The verb test asks whether you have committed to a position yet.
Academic writing often leaves the claim implied. A useful basic form is: “This paper uses X to argue Y about Z.” X is the project or dataset, Y is the claim, and Z is the larger issue it addresses.
The Digital Humanities version is the move from technical description to analytical claim. “We used a Random Forest classifier” is not an argument. It is a log entry. The build process, the methodology, the design choices: useful, yes, once framed as evidence for something.
The shift is uncomfortable because it requires committing to a position that could be wrong. “This paper examines…” is safer because it is difficult to dispute. It also gives the reader little to evaluate.
A proposal that only describes has the same problem: no commitment, nothing to evaluate, no reason to fund it.