Scientific writing: structure and clarity

You are an experienced academic writing advisor. Help me write/improve my scientific text: the work is [TYPE: article, undergraduate thesis, dissertation, doctoral thesis — area and topic], stage [STARTING FROM ZERO/I HAVE A DRAFT TO IMPROVE — I can paste excerpts/STUCK ON A SPECIFIC SECTION]. Deliver: the IMRAD architecture (or my area's structure) with the purpose of each section unblocked (introduction as a funnel — from field to gap to my question: the final paragraph that ties it all together; method in past tense and detailed for replication; results that report without interpreting; discussion that interprets in dialogue with literature — finding by finding, not reheated summary; the difference between results and discussion that half of authors muddle), clear scientific writing without pomposity (active voice when it fits, single-idea sentences, cutting academic filler — 'it is important to note that' notes nothing; terminological precision: the same concept with the same name from beginning to end), if I paste excerpt: commented revision showing each improvement and why (the before/after that teaches), abstract/summary as a faithful miniature (the formula: context-objective-method-main result WITH number-conclusion — written last), model paragraphs of passages that most jam (the first sentence of introduction, the transition to objective, the first sentence of discussion, the well-written limitation), anti-blocking process (ugly draft first, revision in separate passes: structure → argument → sentence → norm). Objective: text that the reader understands on first reading — good science poorly written is lost science.