OK, peer review :-)

I agree that your example is way better than the original you showed, but if you're looking for Extreme Clarity then I think you're falling into some of your own traps.

You're getting rid of acronyms, but what about language that edges into jargon, or assumes specific knowledge? You say "Try an[d] imagine how someone outside your team would read it — would they understand it?" but I'm not sure your example passes that test.

- What does it mean to "enroll" something "at 95% precision"?

- What's "p50 actioning latency"?

- Is there a clearer way to say "overall Ops utilization"?

- What's "Generic Review"?

- What's "auto-close automation"?

- What's "Feature-logging"?

- What do you mean by "likely-SIP accounts above a 0.6 classifier threshold"?

And how about some general simplification of language? For example, why say "ramp up the 13% further" when you can just say "increase"?

One last one: does it matter for clarity whether or not you're "sad" about the intent of abusive reporters?

(PS. I need to write an article called "Extreme Pedantry". But seriously...)

Expand full comment