3 Comments

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

I also wondered about the above points you highlight. My guess was that these were assumed to be reasonably familiar to the audience, or that they didn’t need to know about (eg how the SIP classifier works, and why the threshold is set at 60%)

You have to draw the line *somewhere*, otherwise you’ll end up with a whole dictionary’s worth of definitions 😅

Expand full comment

That’s called “Reasonable Clarity” 😉

Expand full comment