INSTRUMENTS AND MOVES · VOLUME 3 OF 3 · 56 ENTRIES

Papers and protocols

Document genres, paper labels, attribution rules, levels of editing and workplace shorthand.

A toolkit for anyone who writes papers, updates and submissions, or stands up to present them. It has two layers. The moves are what you can see on the page or hear in the room. The instruments explain why each move helps or hurts, so that a judgement about a draft can be argued rather than asserted.

INSTRUMENTS AND MOVES IN THREE VOLUMES

Where this volume sits

VOL 1 Diagnosis and Diction · 01–07 · I–IV The instruments that explain why communication works, and the moves of situation, economy, clarity and register
VOL 2 Cadence and Candour · V–IX The moves of arrangement, emphasis, delivery, candour and logic, and the seven-pass review
VOL 3 Papers and Protocols · C1–C5 · this volume Document genres, paper labels, attribution rules, levels of editing and workplace shorthand
INDEX The phrasebooks glossary · every term in the four toolkits, A to Z, with the volume that holds it

Instruments and Moves runs to three volumes so that each stays short enough to read in one sitting. Every volume holds whole sections in the toolkit’s own order, with the appendices for its own entries. The findings and the explanation of how the toolkit works open volume one. The toolkit closes with the seven-pass review of a draft, at the end of volume two.

The phrasebooks glossary lists every term in all four toolkits and opens it in the volume that holds it.

HOW TO READ AN ENTRY

Six sections, in the order a review needs them

01 Where it came from: the source, the root or the coiner
02 How to spot it: the tells a reviewer can search for (for an instrument: what it says)
03 Why it works or fails: the instrument that explains the verdict
04 On the page and in the room: why the two verdicts agree or split
05 At work: a paper, an update, a meeting or a talk, before and after
06 What to do: the repair, or the dose and the condition

The slide carries the definition, the example from work and both verdicts. The panel adds how to spot it and why it works or fails. The longform carries all six sections, the figure and the sources.

Instruments use the same six slots with different names: where it came from, what it says, what it catches, what it misses, at work, and how to run it on a draft. The fourth, what it misses, is where each instrument’s standing is argued.

The working vocabulary in Part three carries no verdicts and no figures. Its entries have three sections: what the term promises a reader, where it goes wrong at work, and what to do.

Part three of three

Working vocabulary

These terms carry no verdicts. Like the frames in Family I, they name the situation a text is written for: what kind of document it is, what it asks of the reader, who may be quoted and what review it needs.

ONE Instruments
TWO Moves
THREE Working vocabulary

Fifty-six terms in five sets: document genres, paper and correspondence labels, attribution ground rules, levels of editing and workplace shorthand. None carries a verdict.

Each entry has three sections rather than six: what the term promises a reader, where it goes wrong at work, and what to do. The sets close the toolkit because they are where the instruments and moves get used: in choosing the kind of text, labelling what it asks, agreeing who may be quoted and asking for the right review.

DOCUMENT GENRES

Part three of three

What kind of text is this?

A genre sets the reader’s expectations before the first sentence. Calling a think piece a policy brief promises a recommendation it won’t deliver.

Fifteen genres, from the white paper to the elevator pitch. Each entry says what the label promises a reader, how it goes wrong at work, and what to do about it.

The instrument underneath is the rhetorical situation. A genre is a situation that has happened often enough to have a name, so the name arrives with a reader’s expectations already attached: length, stance, whether there will be a recommendation, and who is speaking.

UK GOVERNMENT · IN USE BY 1884 GENRE

White paper

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises weight: a settled position, argued at length, with the evidence behind it. The term comes from British government, where a white paper took its name from its cover and was the shorter cousin of the blue book. Merriam-Webster records it from 1884, and the Churchill White Paper of 1922 is an early well-known example. Industry later borrowed the name for long-form reports, many of them written to sell.

Where it goes wrong. The common misuse is the label as decoration. A vendor’s product brochure called a white paper borrows authority it has not earned. Inside an organisation, a draft still testing options called a white paper tells readers the thinking is done, so they read for implementation and skip the argument. In the Westminster tradition a white paper sets out firm proposals, so readers from that tradition expect commitments.

What to do. Use the label only when the position is settled and the paper defends it in full. State the position on the first page, in a sentence a decider could quote, then give the evidence and the proposal. If the thinking is still open, call it a green paper, a discussion paper or a think piece. Before release, check that the paper commits to what its title promises.

Related · Green paper · Position paper · Policy brief

Sources · Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). White paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20paper

UK GOVERNMENT · 1967 GENRE

Green paper

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises that the question is still open and that views will count. Britannica and Merriam-Webster both date the government concept to 1967. One account, not confirmed, traces the name to a 1941 plan for educational reform from the UK Board of Education, issued in a green binding and known as the “Green Book”. The European Commission also uses the term for discussion documents that open a consultation.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the decision has already been taken. A consultation run after the design is fixed asks for views it cannot use, and the people consulted notice. The opposite failure is a green paper with no questions in it: a description of the issue that leaves readers unsure what the writer wants from them. Schools and parents asked for feedback on a settled policy learn to stop replying.

What to do. Before calling a paper a consultation, write down what could still change and who decides. Put the open questions in a numbered list near the front, each one specific enough to answer. Give the options considered and the criteria for choosing, state the closing date, and say how responses will be reported back. Then publish what was heard and what changed as a result.

Related · White paper · Position paper · Anacoenosis

Sources · The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Green paper. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/green-paper Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Green paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green%20paper

POLICY AND ADVOCACY · BY 1949 GENRE

Position paper

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises a stance and a case for it. The reader expects advocacy: one side, argued well, by a named organisation. Merriam-Webster records the term from 1949 and defines it as a detailed report that recommends a course of action. Professional bodies, school associations and agencies publish position papers to put a view on the record before a consultation closes or a policy changes.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong in two directions. A position paper that hedges every claim reads as a survey of views and leaves no position to quote. A paper that presents advocacy as neutral analysis misleads the reader about what kind of text it is, and a sceptical reader who spots the stance late discounts everything. Within an organisation, a position paper written before the facts are agreed argues at the wrong stasis.

What to do. State the position in the first paragraph, as a claim the organisation will stand behind, and name on whose behalf it is made. Then give the grounds and answer the strongest objection, as the Toulmin model lays out: claim, grounds, warrant, rebuttal. Say plainly where the evidence is contested. Before release, test the position sentence: if a reader could not quote it in a meeting, sharpen it.

Related · White paper · Toulmin model · Stasis theory · Procatalepsis

Sources · Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Position paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/position%20paper

MINISTRIES AND THINK TANKS GENRE

Policy brief

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises brevity and a recommendation. The reader expects to learn the problem, the options and what the writer advises, in a few pages, and to be able to act on it. Think tanks and research bodies use the form to carry findings to decision-makers who will not read the full study. The Pyramid Principle describes its shape: the answer first, the support grouped beneath it (Minto, 2009).

Where it goes wrong. The common failure is a brief with no recommendation. A research summary, a think piece or a literature review is given the label, and the decider reaches the end without knowing what to do. The second failure is length: a 20-page “brief” has broken its own promise. The third is writing for researchers, with method first and the implication last, when the reader is a minister’s office or a division director.

What to do. Open with the recommendation and the decision it serves, in two or three sentences. Follow with the problem, the options weighed and the reasons for the choice, then the cost and the risk. Move method and detailed evidence to an annex. Keep the body to what a decider can read before the meeting starts. If there is no recommendation yet, change the label.

Related · Pyramid Principle and SCQA · BLUF · Think piece · Position paper

Sources · Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking (3rd ed.). Pearson.

JOURNALISM · BY 1941 GENRE

Think piece

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises an argument in development: a frame, a provocation, a way of seeing a problem before anyone decides what to do about it. Merriam-Webster records the term from 1941 and defines it as writing meant to be thought-provoking and speculative, built from background, opinion and analysis. In education systems it suits futuring and strategy work, where the job is to widen the options before anyone narrows them.

Where it goes wrong. Mislabelling is the classic failure. Called a policy brief, a think piece promises a recommendation it will not deliver, and the decider reads the ending as evasion. The reverse also happens: a recommendation wrapped in essay form, so the ask arrives on page nine. A third failure is the piece that explores without arriving, which leaves readers with a mood but no idea they could restate.

What to do. Say on the first page what kind of text this is and what it asks of the reader: to consider, to discuss, to change a frame. State the idea in one sentence a reader could carry into a meeting. Develop it, test it against its strongest objection, and end on the questions it opens for decision. If a recommendation emerges, write it up as a separate brief.

Related · Policy brief · Op-ed · Framing functions

Sources · Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Think piece. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/think%20piece

NEWSPAPERS · NYT 1970 GENRE

Op-ed

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises one named person’s argument, which the paper hosts but does not endorse. Op-ed is short for “opposite the editorial page”, not “opinion-editorial”. The New York Times launched its op-ed page in September 1970 under editor John B. Oakes (Socolow, 2010). A possible precursor was the “Page Op.” that Herbert Bayard Swope created at the New York Evening World in 1921.

Where it goes wrong. At work the form travels into newsletters, professional networks and staff bulletins. It goes wrong when an officer writes in a personal voice on a matter where readers will hear the organisation, or when an op-ed is drafted by committee and loses the single voice that makes it work. Clearance rules for public servants writing in the media also apply, and they differ between organisations.

What to do. Make one argument, in one voice, for a general reader who owes you nothing. Open with the news hook or the problem, state the claim early and support it with one or two concrete cases. Check the outlet’s length and exclusivity rules, and your organisation’s clearance process, before you write. End on what you want the reader to think or do.

Related · Think piece · Position paper · Ethos, logos, pathos

Sources · Socolow, M. J. (2010). A profitable public sphere: The creation of the New York Times op-ed page. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901008700204

NEWSROOM · BY 1942 GENRE

Backgrounder

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises facts, not a pitch: the history, the numbers and the terms a reader needs before the news makes sense. Merriam-Webster records the word from 1942 and gives two senses. The first is an off-the-record briefing for reporters. The second is a document that supplies background on a subject. The double meaning survives, so a backgrounder session may carry attribution rules that a backgrounder document does not.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when advocacy is dressed as context. A backgrounder that selects only the favourable figures will be read as spin once a journalist or a decider checks it. The second failure is the curse of knowledge: a backgrounder written by the project team assumes the history it was meant to supply, so a new deputy director or a reporter meets acronyms with no story behind them.

What to do. Write it for a reader who arrives cold. Give the timeline, the key figures with their sources, the terms defined and the people or bodies involved. Keep opinion out, or mark it clearly. If a briefing goes with it and has ground rules, state them at the start of the session, not in the document. Ask someone outside the team to read it first.

Related · Fact sheet · Explainer · Curse of knowledge · Not for attribution, on background

Sources · Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Backgrounder. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backgrounder

NEWSROOM · EXPLANATORY JOURNALISM GENRE

Explainer

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises understanding: after reading, the reader can say how the thing works and why it matters to them. Explanatory journalism is older than the word’s current fashion. The Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting dates from 1985, and the 2010s brought outlets built around the form, such as Vox. Public agencies now use explainers for policy changes, new systems and school processes that parents and teachers must follow.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the explainer explains the organisation rather than the thing. A parent wants to know what changes for their child and when. An explainer that opens with the policy intent and the review process answers a question nobody asked. The second failure is false simplicity: removing the conditions and exceptions that matter, so readers act on an account that is not quite true.

What to do. Start from the reader’s question, in their words, and answer it first. Walk through the mechanism in the order the reader will meet it, with one concrete case. Keep the exceptions that change what a reader does, and drop the ones that do not. Test the draft with someone from the intended audience: ask them to explain it back, and fix what they get wrong.

Related · Backgrounder · Fact sheet · Plain language principles · Curse of knowledge

LAUNCHES AND BRIEFINGS GENRE

Fact sheet

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises economy and checkability: the essentials on one page, each fact stated once and ready to quote. Readers expect numbers, dates, names and definitions, not argument. At a launch or a briefing, the fact sheet is what journalists, school leaders and colleagues keep after the talk ends. It tends to outlive the speech it accompanied and becomes the source others copy from.

Where it goes wrong. The common failure is the fact sheet that persuades. Adjectives, claims of impact and selected comparisons turn a reference into a brochure, and readers stop trusting the numbers. The second is overflow: two pages of small type that defeat the form. The third is drift. A figure updated in the speech but not on the sheet, or the reverse, leaves two official numbers in circulation.

What to do. Keep it to one page and to facts a reader can check. Give each figure its date and source. Use headings a reader can scan: what, who, when, how much, where to find more. Before release, fact-check every number against the speech, the press release and the website, so that all three say the same thing. Then put a date on the sheet.

Related · Backgrounder · Press release, media statement · Brevitas

PUBLIC RELATIONS · IVY LEE 1906 GENRE

Press release, media statement

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises news, stated in words the organisation will stand by. Ivy Lee is usually credited with the first press release, issued in 1906 after a Pennsylvania Railroad accident at Atlantic City. The form follows the inverted pyramid of news writing, so an editor can cut from the bottom (Pöttker, 2003). A media statement is often shorter and reactive: a response to a matter already in the news.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when there is no news. A release announcing a meeting, a visit or a framework that changes nothing for anyone will not be run, and it trains editors to skip the next one. The second failure is burying the news under thanks and context. The third is a quotation no person would say aloud, attributed to a named leader who will later be asked about it.

What to do. Write the headline and first paragraph as if nothing else will be read: who, what, when, and what changes. Put the context below. Give quotations that sound like the person and add something the facts do not. Add a contact, a date and an embargo if there is one. Then check that the release, the fact sheet and the website agree.

Related · Inverted pyramid · Fact sheet · Holding statement · Spin

Sources · Pöttker, H. (2003). News and its communicative quality: The inverted pyramid. When and why did it appear? Journalism Studies, 4(4), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670032000136596

CRISIS COMMUNICATION GENRE

Holding statement

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises a placeholder: the organisation knows something has happened, is acting, and will say more. It does not promise causes, blame or numbers. Communications teams draft holding statements in advance for foreseeable events, such as a system outage during an examination period or an incident on a school trip, so that the first public words are measured rather than improvised.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when it says too much or too little. A statement that speculates on cause has to be corrected later, and the correction becomes the story. A statement that says only “we are aware” reads as indifference when people are affected. A holding statement still in use days later, after the facts are known, signals that no one has taken charge.

What to do. Prepare templates for the incidents you can foresee and agree who clears them. In the moment, say what has happened as far as it is confirmed, what is being done, what affected people should do, and when the next update will come. Leave out cause and blame until they are established. Replace the statement with a full one as soon as the facts allow.

Related · Press release, media statement · Talking points, lines to take · Hedging

CIVIL SERVICE AND POLITICAL PRACTICE GENRE

Talking points, lines to take

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises consistency: everyone who speaks on the issue will say the same thing in roughly the same words. “Lines to take” is the British civil service name for the agreed wording drafted for ministers who will face questions. “Talking points” is the wider term. Merriam-Webster records “talking point” from 1862, in the sense of something that supports an argument. Today the form serves anyone fronting a change.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when lines replace answers. A spokesperson who repeats the line after a direct question appears evasive, and the line becomes the quotation. Lines written for the page fail aloud: long sentences, nested clauses, acronyms. And lines circulated without the facts behind them leave a school leader unable to handle the second question from a parent.

What to do. Write three to five lines, each a sentence that can be said in one breath and quoted alone. Under each, give the facts behind it and the likely follow-up questions with answers. Read every line aloud before it is agreed. Mark which lines are for public use and which are background only. Date them, and withdraw them when the position changes.

Related · Holding statement · Orality vs literacy · Refrain · Spin

Sources · Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Talking point. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talking%20point

REPORT WRITING · BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT GENRE

Executive summary

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises that this page stands alone: a reader who stops here has the problem, the finding, the recommendation and the ask. “Executive” names the intended reader, the person who decides and has least time. Writing guides commonly put its length at a twentieth to a tenth of the report. The Pyramid Principle describes its shape: the answer first, then the reasons that support it (Minto, 2009).

Where it goes wrong. The common failure is a summary that describes the paper instead of summarising it: “This paper sets out the background, examines three options and makes recommendations.” The reader learns the contents but not the answer. Other failures: a summary written first and never updated, so it promises what the paper no longer says, and a summary that introduces a figure or claim the body does not contain.

What to do. Write it last, from the finished paper. Open with the decision sought and the recommendation, then give the reasons, the cost and the main risk, a sentence each. Use no term the body has not defined and no number the body does not contain. Test it by giving it to a colleague who has not seen the paper and asking them to state the ask.

Related · BLUF · Pyramid Principle and SCQA · One-pager · Policy brief

Sources · Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking (3rd ed.). Pearson.

PRE-READS AND PITCHES GENRE

One-pager

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises completeness in a fixed space: problem, proposal, evidence, cost and ask, all visible at once. The constraint is the point. One page forces the writer to choose, and lets a reader take in the whole case in the minutes before a meeting. Unlike a fact sheet, which lists facts, a one-pager argues. Unlike an executive summary, it need not sit on top of a longer paper.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the limit is met by shrinking rather than choosing: small type, narrow margins, dense tables and acronyms. The reader gets every point and no case. A second failure is the cover sheet, a list of headings with the argument saved for the meeting. A third is the one-pager with four annexes, which tells the reader the writer could not decide what mattered.

What to do. Write the ask first, in a sentence, then keep only what the reader needs to agree to it: the problem, the proposal, two or three pieces of evidence, the cost and the risk. Use headings a reader can scan, at the normal type size. If it will not fit, cut a point rather than shrink the type. Send it early enough to be read before the meeting.

Related · Executive summary · Fact sheet · Policy brief · Brevitas

BUSINESS PRACTICE · ORIGIN DISPUTED GENRE

Elevator pitch

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GENRE · a kind of document: it sets what the reader expects before the first sentence

What it promises. The label promises a case short enough to finish before the doors open, usually put at 30 seconds to two minutes. Its origin is disputed. One account credits Philip Crosby, the quality-management writer, with advising people to have a short speech ready for a chance meeting with an executive. Another credits Michael Caruso, a Vanity Fair editor in the 1990s, who pitched story ideas to his editor in lifts. Neither account is well documented.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the pitch is a compressed paper: background, method and findings at speed, with the ask squeezed into the last sentence or lost. It also goes wrong as a script recited at someone who asked a different question, or as jargon a listener cannot unpack in a corridor. And it fails when there is no ask at all, so the senior leader agrees warmly and nothing happens.

What to do. Prepare three sentences: the problem in the listener’s terms, what you propose, and the one thing you want from them, such as a meeting, a decision or a name. Say them aloud until each fits one breath. Keep one number or case ready that makes the problem real. End on the ask, and meet a “not now” with a date to follow up.

Related · One-pager · Hook · BLUF · ABT: And, But, Therefore

PAPER AND CORRESPONDENCE LABELS

Part three of three

What the paper asks of its reader

A paper’s label is its speech act. “For information” asserts. “For decision” directs. A paper marked “for information” that actually needs a decision is the same failure as an email that says “just flagging” when it is really a request.

Eleven labels from committee papers, agendas, emails and letters. Most are small, and each one tells the reader what is being asked of them before they read a word.

The instrument underneath is speech act theory. A mislabelled paper is an indirect speech act that nobody agreed to: the reader files it, and the decision it needed is never taken.

COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

For decision, for approval

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. In Searle’s (1976) terms the label makes the paper a directive: it asks the reader to act. The act it asks for is a declaration, since a chair who says “approved” changes the state of affairs by saying it. So the label promises a question that can be answered yes or no, options already weighed, and a recommendation the reader can accept, amend or reject.

Where it goes wrong. The paper carries the label but hides the decision: six pages of background, the options on page five, and no single sentence the chair can read out and approve. The opposite failure is a decision dressed as information. A vendor contract renewal is tabled “for noting”, and a choice passes without anyone having made it.

What to do. Put the decision in the first paragraph, worded as the minute you want: “EXCO is invited to approve the extension of the pilot to 40 schools from Term 1.” Then give the options, the recommendation and what approval commits. Answer first, support beneath (Minto, 2009). Check that a reader who stops after one paragraph could still vote.

Related · Speech acts · BLUF · Pyramid Principle and SCQA · For endorsement

Sources · Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking (3rd ed.). Pearson.

COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

For endorsement

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. Endorsement sits between discussion and decision. The reader is asked to commit, not to decide: to put their name behind the paper so that it reaches the final decider with backing. In speech-act terms it is a directive that asks for a commitment. The label promises a paper that is close to final, with the open questions settled at this level and the route upward stated.

Where it goes wrong. Two misuses recur. The first sends a half-formed proposal for endorsement in the hope that the committee will shape it, which makes it a paper for discussion. The second treats endorsement as approval. A division starts procurement because a steering group endorsed the plan, while the funding decision still sits with the body above. The endorser’s name is now attached to a step it never authorised.

What to do. State what endorsement commits the reader to and what happens next: “Endorsement is sought for the proposal to go to EXCO on 12 March.” Name the final decider and the date. If the content will change after this meeting, say so, and ask whether the paper should be marked for discussion instead. Minute exactly what was endorsed, with its version number.

Related · For decision, for approval · For discussion · Speech acts

COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

For discussion

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. The label promises an open question. The writer has not settled the answer and wants the room’s judgement to shape it. A paper for discussion should therefore end on questions rather than a recommendation, and set out the options with enough evidence for people to weigh them. It is an invitation to think, which makes it the committee’s nearest relative of the think piece.

Where it goes wrong. The commonest misuse is a settled matter presented as open. The paper asks for views, but the vendor is chosen and the timeline fixed, and the room soon senses that its input changes nothing. The reverse also happens: a discussion paper ends on a recommendation and is minuted as if it had been approved, so a decision is taken without anyone being asked to take it.

What to do. End the paper with two to four numbered questions for the meeting, each one something the writer has genuinely not settled. Say what you will do with the views and when the matter will return for decision. If the answer is already fixed, change the label, and say plainly what remains open, if anything does.

Related · For decision, for approval · Think piece · Anacoenosis

COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

For information, for noting

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. “For information” asserts. In Searle’s (1976) classes it is a representative: it tells the reader that something is so and asks nothing further. “For noting” adds a record, since the body’s receipt of the paper is minuted. The label promises that the reader can read, understand and move on, and that no choice is being withheld from them.

Where it goes wrong. The failure is the request disguised as an update, the same as the email that says “just flagging”. A risk paper marked for information carries a slipped deadline and a budget overrun on page four. Once the committee has noted it, the writer can say the committee was told, while no one decided anything. Noting becomes a way to move accountability without asking for a decision.

What to do. Before choosing the label, ask whether any reader must do or decide anything as a result. If yes, the paper is for decision or discussion, whatever its length. If no, open with the one thing the reader should now know and keep it short. Where a risk is reported, name who owns it and when it will return to the committee.

Related · Speech acts · For decision, for approval · Meiosis

Sources · Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

OFFICE MEMO PRACTICE LABEL

FYI, FYA, FYR

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. The tags are the committee labels shrunk for email. FYI asserts and asks nothing. FYA directs: the recipient now owns a task. FYR files something for later use, with nothing due now. Each tells the reader, before they open the message, how much attention it needs and what they owe the sender. FYI is widely understood. FYA and FYR are routine in some organisations and unknown in others.

Where it goes wrong. An FYI forwarded over a 30-message thread, when the sender needs one decision buried in the 12th message, is a request disguised as information. FYA has its own failure: it assigns work with no deadline or reason, and to readers outside the organisation the abbreviation may mean nothing. An FYR sent to a busy reader can read as the sender covering themselves.

What to do. Use a tag only if it is true, and add one line that says what the reader should take from the message: “FYA: please confirm the school list by Friday. The rest is background.” For readers outside your team, write the request out in full. Never forward a long thread with only “FYI”. Summarise it in three lines at the top.

Related · For information, for noting · Speech acts · Acronym load · BLUF

BRITISH COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

AOB

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. AOB is the agenda’s open door. It promises that members can raise a short matter, usually one that arose after the agenda was set. Because it comes last, it also implies that nothing of weight will be decided there without notice. Many committees in British and Commonwealth practice ask for AOB items to be notified to the chair before the meeting.

Where it goes wrong. AOB is used to slip a decision past a tired room. A member raises a substantial proposal in the last five minutes, with no paper, and the chair records agreement. Members who left early, and those who would have prepared, had no chance. AOB can also become a habit: a standing slot where the real business gets done because the agenda was set too early.

What to do. Ask for AOB items to reach the chair a day before, with a line on what is sought. Keep AOB for information and quick agreement on small matters. Anything that needs a real decision becomes a paper at the next meeting, or a separate meeting if it cannot wait. Minute who raised each item and what was agreed.

Related · Matters arising · Kairos · For decision, for approval

BRITISH COMMITTEE PRACTICE LABEL

Matters arising

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. The item comes after the minutes of the last meeting are confirmed. It promises accountability: the actions recorded last time are checked, and members hear what came of them. It ties one meeting to the next, so that a committee’s decisions are followed through and not just spoken. A matter arising should be an update on something already agreed, not a new topic.

Where it goes wrong. Two failures. The item turns into a second debate on last month’s decision, reopening what was settled because someone missed the meeting. Or it shrinks to a ritual, read from memory with no action log, so overdue items slide from meeting to meeting unnoticed. A new proposal brought in as a matter arising also escapes the scrutiny a paper would get.

What to do. Keep an action log with owner, due date and status, and circulate it with the draft minutes. In the meeting, take only the items that are late, blocked or need a decision, and note the rest from the log. If a decision is to be reopened, say so openly and bring a paper. Close each item with its new status in the minutes.

Related · Minute (verb) · AOB · For information, for noting

LATIN MINUTUS · “SMALL” LABEL

Minute (verb)

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. “Please minute that” asks for a remark to enter the record, and so binds the body to it. The noun is older. A minute was a short note or draft by the 15th century, from the Latin minutus, small, and minutes as the record of a meeting date from the early 18th century. The label promises that what is minuted is what the meeting agreed, in words it would accept.

Where it goes wrong. The failure is recording the wrong thing. Minutes that list who said what, but not what was agreed, leave the decision open to dispute. The opposite misuse is the late request: someone asks after the meeting for a remark to be minuted, or the secretary writes a firmer decision than the room reached. The record then decides what the meeting did not.

What to do. Minute decisions and actions, not debate: what was decided, who will act and by when. Before the meeting closes, read the key decisions back in the words you will record. Circulate the draft within a few days, while memories are fresh, and correct it openly at the next meeting when the minutes are confirmed.

Related · Matters arising · Speech acts · For decision, for approval

LATIN PER PROCURATIONEM LABEL

pp

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. The abbreviation stands for per procurationem, “through the agency of”. In the traditional form, pp sits beside the name of the person who actually signs, the agent. Modern usage has largely turned this round, reading pp as “on behalf of” and placing it before the name of the absent principal. Both forms are in use and reference books differ, so the mark alone does not always show who signed.

Where it goes wrong. Signing pp without authority is the serious misuse, because the letter commits a principal who may never have seen it. The routine misuse is an illegible signature over a typed name with pp somewhere between them, so the reader cannot tell whether the director read the letter or an officer signed it in their absence. For a letter that grants, refuses or commits, that difference matters.

What to do. Sign pp only with the principal’s clear authority, for that letter or that class of letter. Make the arrangement legible: “Signed by the deputy director for the Director, who is overseas.” Many offices now prefer that plain wording to the abbreviation. Keep a copy that shows who signed. If the letter makes a decision, get the principal’s approval in writing first.

Related · Encl., under separate cover · Amphiboly

LETTER-WRITING CONVENTION LABEL

Encl., under separate cover

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. “Encl.”, short for enclosure, sits below the signature and tells the reader to look for something else in the envelope, often with a count or a list. “Under separate cover” promises that a named item is coming by another route. Both are inventory notes. They let the reader check that what arrived matches what was sent, and they put the sender on record for what went.

Where it goes wrong. The note promises what is not there: “Encl.” with no attachment, or “under separate cover” for a report that never follows. In email the phrase survives as stiff ornament, as in “please find attached under separate cover” for a file attached to the same message. The unnamed enclosure is the quieter failure. “Encl. 3” tells the reader that three things should exist, but not which three.

What to do. Name each enclosure: “Encl.: 1. Pilot evaluation report. 2. Budget table.” If something is sent separately, say what, how and when: “The data file follows by secure transfer today.” In email, write “I have attached”, and check the attachment is there before sending. Drop the formula wherever a plain sentence does the job.

Related · pp · Circumlocution

SINGAPORE AND INDIAN ENGLISH LABEL

Revert

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

LABEL · a label that tells the reader what is being asked of them

What it promises. Most dictionaries define revert as returning to an earlier state, practice or topic. In Indian English it also means to reply, and that sense has spread to Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary added it in its eighth edition (Hornby, 2010), marked as Indian English. To a reader who shares the usage, “please revert” is a polite request for an answer.

Where it goes wrong. The word works inside its speech community and misfires outside it. A British or American partner reads “please revert by Friday” as odd, or as a request to undo something: revert the settings, revert the decision. “Revert back” adds a pleonasm in any variety. The risk peaks in a multinational vendor thread, where “we will revert” can be read as a promise to roll back a change.

What to do. Know your reader. With local colleagues, revert is clear and fine. In email to international partners, vendors or researchers, write “please reply by Friday” or “we will get back to you by Friday”. In technical threads, where revert also means restoring an earlier version, avoid the word unless that is what you mean.

Related · Polysemy · Pleonasm · Audience

Sources · Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

ATTRIBUTION GROUND RULES

Part three of three

Who may be quoted, and how

Outlets define these differently. Agree the terms before you speak, not after.

Five terms for speaking to journalists, researchers and anyone else who may repeat what you say: four ground rules and the technique for staying on message. The definitions vary between outlets, so the entries give the common reading and say where it varies.

The failure is almost always one of timing. A ground rule claimed after the words are spoken binds no one, and a rule that two people understand differently is not a rule.

NEWSROOM PRACTICE · THE DEFAULT GROUND RULE

On the record

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GROUND RULE · the terms on which something said may be used

What it promises. On the record gives the reporter everything: the words can be quoted and the speaker named. It is the default. The Associated Press defines it as information usable with no caveats, quoting the source by name. Guidance for scientists from SciLine (n.d.) warns that everything said to a reporter is on the record unless other terms are agreed beforehand. Outlets differ on the other three terms, but rarely on this one.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong through assumption. An officer on a conference panel, a school leader chatting after an event or a project lead on a podcast assumes the casual tone means the remarks are private. They are not. A reporter in the room, or a participant who posts, can quote them. The second failure is the retroactive request: “that was off the record”, said after the words are out, binds no one.

What to do. Assume you are on the record whenever a journalist is present, or anyone who might publish, unless terms were agreed before you spoke. Ask at the start: is this on the record, and for which outlet? Say only what you would be content to see quoted under your name and role. If something must be said on other terms, agree those terms first.

Related · Not for attribution, on background · Off the record · Ethos, logos, pathos

Sources · SciLine. (n.d.). Attribution rules. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.sciline.org/learn/attribution-rules/

WHITE HOUSE PRESS · FDR 1933 GROUND RULE

Not for attribution, on background

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GROUND RULE · the terms on which something said may be used

What it promises. The terms give the reporter the substance and the speaker some cover. At his first press conference, in March 1933, Franklin Roosevelt defined background information as material reporters could use on their own authority, not to be attributed to the White House (Roosevelt, 1933). Usage still varies. The Associated Press treats background as publishable under conditions negotiated with the source, which usually means an agreed description.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the description identifies the person. “A senior official in the division leading the review” may point to one person. It also goes wrong when the speaker and the reporter mean different things: one hears “not for attribution”, the other “use it but find a second source”. Conference roundtables often use the Chatham House Rule instead, which protects both identity and affiliation.

What to do. Agree the exact attribution wording before you speak: “an education official”, “a person familiar with the project”. Check that the description does not narrow to one person. Confirm the terms in writing if the conversation matters. For a closed discussion, name the Chatham House Rule and say it at the start. Then speak as if the description might one day be decoded.

Related · On the record · Deep background · Off the record · Weasel words

WASHINGTON PRESS PRACTICE GROUND RULE

Deep background

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GROUND RULE · the terms on which something said may be used

What it promises. Deep background gives the reporter the information and the source near-total cover. The Associated Press defines it as information that can be used but without attribution. The reporter writes it as their own knowledge, with no “official said”. The term is best known from Watergate: Washington Post managing editor Howard Simons named Bob Woodward’s source “Deep Throat”, a play on the deep background terms the source spoke under and on a film title of the day.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong because few people outside newsrooms know the term exists, and reporters do not all define it alike (SciLine, n.d.). A speaker who agrees to deep background may think nothing will be printed. A reporter may think it permits the story with no sourcing at all. In public service the rules on unauthorised disclosure still apply, whatever terms a reporter offers.

What to do. Treat deep background as an exception that needs clearance, not a courtesy. If it is proposed, ask the reporter to describe exactly how the information will appear, and in what words. Check your organisation’s rules on media contact before agreeing to anything. If the information cannot appear under any attribution you could defend, do not give it.

Related · Not for attribution, on background · Off the record · Agentless passive

Sources · SciLine. (n.d.). Attribution rules. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.sciline.org/learn/attribution-rules/

JOURNALISM · DEFINITIONS VARY GROUND RULE

Off the record

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GROUND RULE · the terms on which something said may be used

What it promises. Off the record promises the speaker that nothing said will be published. The Associated Press defines it that way: information that cannot be used for publication. Roosevelt used it in 1933 for confidential information given only to those present (Roosevelt, 1933). Yet it is the least stable of the four terms. When Slate asked five Washington Post journalists in 1999, their answers ranged from not using it at all to using it if confirmed elsewhere.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong in three ways. The speaker announces it after the words are spoken, when the reporter has not agreed. The speaker means “don’t name me” while the reporter hears “don’t use this”, or the reverse. And the information travels by another route, because a fact shared off the record is still a fact the reporter now knows and may confirm from someone else.

What to do. Ask before you speak, not after: “Can we go off the record, and what will that mean for you?” Wait for a clear yes. Say only what you could survive seeing in print, because the term protects your name better than it protects the information. With anyone who might publish, prefer saying nothing to saying it off the record.

Related · On the record · Deep background · Not for attribution, on background · Kairos

Sources · Roosevelt, F. D. (1933, March 8). Press conference [Transcript]. The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-conference-25 For the record, what “off the record” means. (1999, June 22). Slate. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/06/for-the-record-what-off-the-record-means.html

MEDIA TRAINING PRACTICE GROUND RULE

Bridging, block and bridge

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

GROUND RULE · the terms on which something said may be used

What it promises. The term promises a way to keep control of an interview without refusing questions. Media trainers teach it as a sequence: block, by answering or acknowledging the question briefly, then bridge, with a phrase such as “what matters most here is”, to a prepared message. Trainers define it differently, and the origin of the term is not documented. The better guides insist that the question is answered first, or the bridge reads as evasion.

Where it goes wrong. It goes wrong when the block is skipped and the bridge becomes a dodge. Listeners often miss a dodge when the answer fits a similar question, but notice when it is clearly unrelated, and then rate the speaker less favourably (Rogers & Norton, 2011). Journalists know the stock bridging phrases. And a bridge used on every question, at a parents’ forum or a staff town hall, tells the room that no real answers are coming.

What to do. Answer the question asked, in a sentence, before moving anywhere. If you cannot answer, say why, and say when you will. Then bridge to a message that bears on the question, not merely the one you prepared. Rehearse the hard questions in advance with honest short answers. With colleagues, prefer a straight answer and a follow-up to a bridge.

Related · On the record · Talking points, lines to take · Cooperative principle · Spin

Sources · Rogers, T., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023439

LEVELS OF EDITING

Part three of three

What kind of review the draft needs

“Can you take a look?” can’t be answered well until it names a level. A proofread on a paper that needs a structural edit wastes everyone’s time. Work from the top down: structure before sentences, sentences before commas.

Ten levels and tools of review, in the order a draft needs them. The moves in Part two are what a line edit applies. The instruments in Part one are what a structural edit uses.

The order is the same one the toolkit closes on: fix the expensive faults first. A comma corrected in a paragraph that is later cut is time spent twice.

BOOK AND MAGAZINE PUBLISHING EDIT

Structural edit, developmental edit

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The structural edit promises the largest changes: sections moved, cut or written. Editors Canada defines it as assessing and shaping draft material to improve its organisation and content (Editors Canada, n.d.), and its standards treat it first, ahead of stylistic editing, copy editing and proofreading (Editors Canada, 2024). “Developmental edit” is the book-publishing name for related work that often starts earlier, while the draft is still an outline.

Where it goes wrong. It is asked for too late. A paper reaches a senior reviewer two days before EXCO, and the reviewer sees that the case is argued at the wrong stasis: it proves the platform works when the question is whether it is worth the cost. There is no time to restructure, so the reviewer corrects commas. The other failure is a structural editor who rewrites sentences, which buries the big comment.

What to do. Ask for a structural edit when the outline or first draft exists, not the final. Give the editor the reader, the decision sought and the deadline. Ask for comments on the case and the order only: what is missing, what is out of place, what can go. A one-page sketch in Pyramid Principle or SCQA form makes this edit quick.

Related · Line edit · Stasis theory · Pyramid Principle and SCQA · Five canons

Sources · Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/ Editors Canada. (2024). Professional editorial standards 2024. https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/

BOOK PUBLISHING · STYLISTIC EDITING EDIT

Line edit

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The line edit promises that the case stays and the sentences change. Editors Canada calls this level stylistic editing: work to clarify meaning, ensure coherence and flow, and refine the language (Editors Canada, n.d.). It is where the toolkit’s moves are applied: cutting pleonasm and throat-clearing, unpacking nominalisations, fixing topic and stress positions, and matching register to the reader.

Where it goes wrong. A line edit on a draft with the wrong structure polishes sentences that will be cut. The other failure is the line editor who imposes their own voice: every sentence improved, the author no longer recognisable, and the meaning shifted in places. In a policy paper that shift matters. “Schools may” becomes “schools should”, and nobody signed off the change.

What to do. Line edit only after the structure holds. Track changes so the author sees each one, and flag any edit that alters meaning instead of making it silently. Read aloud the paragraphs that carry the decision. Work in passes where you can, first economy, then clarity, then register, so that each pass looks for one family of moves.

Related · Structural edit, developmental edit · Copyedit · Nominalisation · Topic and stress position

Sources · Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/

NEWSROOM AND BOOK PUBLISHING EDIT

Copyedit

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The copyedit promises a text that is correct and consistent, not a better argument. Editors Canada defines it as editing to ensure correctness, accuracy, consistency and completeness (Editors Canada, n.d.). The copyeditor checks grammar and spelling, that a term means the same thing throughout, that numbers add up and match the tables, that references are complete, and that the house style is applied.

Where it goes wrong. The copyeditor is asked to fix the argument, or the author sends rewrites after the copyedit, so new errors arrive in text that no one will check again. Inconsistency survives when nobody keeps a record: “the learning portal” on page two, “the LP” undefined on page three, “the platform” on page six, and three spellings of a programme name across the annexes.

What to do. Freeze the content before the copyedit. Give the copyeditor the house style and the project’s style sheet, and ask them to add to the sheet as they decide. Check every number against its source table and every cross-reference against the final numbering. Query, do not guess: if a term is used two ways, ask the author which is meant.

Related · Style sheet · House style, style guide · Proofread · Fact-check

Sources · Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/

PRINTING · FROM “PROOF” EDIT

Proofread

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The term comes from printing. A proof was a trial impression of set type, which the proofreader marked against the copy before the full run. Editors Canada defines proofreading as examining material after layout or in its final format (Editors Canada, n.d.). The promise is narrow: the words are settled, and the check is for typos, broken layout, wrong page numbers, missing figures and stray marks.

Where it goes wrong. A proofread on a paper that needs a structural edit finds three typos while the case is argued in the wrong order. The reverse is as costly. A proofreader who rewrites at this stage brings new errors into a laid-out text, reflows the pages and breaks cross-references that were already checked. Late changes are the most expensive kind.

What to do. Proofread the final format: the PDF, the printed page or the platform screen, not the Word draft. Check what layout breaks: headings, page and figure numbers, tables split across pages, links and captions. Read slowly, on paper or aloud if you can. Fix errors only, and send anything larger back to the author with a note on its cost.

Related · Copyedit · Structural edit, developmental edit · Fact-check

Sources · Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/

MAGAZINE PRACTICE · TIME 1923 EDIT

Fact-check

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. Checking as a separate job grew up in American magazines. Time took on its first checker in 1923, and The New Yorker began rigorous checking in 1927, after publishing an inaccurate profile. The promise is that each fact has been traced to a source, not just read for plausibility. Editors Canada treats it as a distinct skill: checking facts, citations and quotes against original or authoritative sources (Editors Canada, n.d.).

Where it goes wrong. The check is skipped because the number came from a colleague. A paper says 92% of teachers use a feature weekly. The figure came from a pilot of 14 schools, and the source said “logged in”, not “used”. Secondary citation is the other trap: a statistic copied from a slide that copied it from a report that rounded it, and nobody has opened the original.

What to do. Mark every checkable claim in the draft: names, titles, dates, numbers and quotations. For each, open the primary source and confirm the figure, its date, its population and its wording. Note the source beside the claim in a checking copy. Where a fact cannot be verified, cut it or say plainly in the text that it is unverified.

Related · Copyedit · Weasel words · Unfalsifiable claim

Sources · Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/

OFFICE PRACTICE EDIT

Sense check

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The sense check promises a short read of the whole text with one question: does this hang together? The reader usually knows the context and the stakes. They check that the ask is clear, the numbers are plausible, the tone suits the audience and nothing would embarrass the signatory. It takes minutes, not hours, which is why it is the review most often asked for.

Where it goes wrong. The phrase is vague, so the reviewer guesses the level. One returns 40 tracked changes, another says “looks fine”, and neither notices that the recommendation contradicts the paper’s own data. A sense check is also no substitute for a fact-check. A plausible wrong number passes it easily, because plausibility is all it tests.

What to do. Say what you want checked and how long it should take: “Ten minutes, please. Is the ask clear on page one, and does anything jar for the director?” Choose a reader who knows the audience. Ask for two or three comments, not an edit. If they find a structural problem, take it seriously and give it time.

Related · Cold read · Structural edit, developmental edit · Fact-check

EDITORIAL PRACTICE EDIT

Cold read

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The cold reader has not been in the meetings, does not know the acronyms and has not seen the earlier drafts. That is the point. Camerer et al. (1989) found that better-informed people could not set their knowledge aside when predicting what less-informed people would judge, and Pinker (2014) made this the central problem of style. The cold read supplies the reader the writer cannot imagine.

Where it goes wrong. The cold reader is told what the paper is meant to say before reading, which warms them. Or they are picked from the project team because they are quick, and so share every assumption. The writer then defends instead of listening: “That’s explained in annex B” answers the comment but not the problem, because the real reader will not open annex B either.

What to do. Pick someone close to the real reader in role but outside the project. Give them the draft and nothing else. Ask them to mark where they stopped, what they had to guess and what they think is being asked. Compare their one-line summary with yours. Where the two differ, fix the draft, not the reader.

Related · Curse of knowledge · Audience · Acronym load · Sense check

Sources · Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–1254. https://doi.org/10.1086/261651 Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style. Viking.

BRITISH NEWSROOMS EDIT

Subbing

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. In British newsrooms, and many others in the Commonwealth, the sub-editor or sub works between reporter and page. Subs cut stories to length, check facts and style, rewrite where needed, and write the headlines, standfirsts and captions. American newsrooms call the role copy editor. Subbing promises a text fitted to its space and its reader, under a headline that tells the story.

Where it goes wrong. Outside newsrooms, “can you sub this?” is ambiguous: one reader hears copyedit, another proofread, when the writer wanted cuts. Inside them, the risk is a headline that oversells the story, so a newsletter item on a small pilot becomes “Platform lifts results”. A work update subbed to fit a word limit can also lose the qualifier that made its claim true.

What to do. Borrow the sub’s habits for updates and newsletters. Cut to the length the reader will give, write a headline that states the finding, and check that headline against the text beneath it. When asking someone else to sub a piece, say “cut it to 300 words and write the headline”, not just “sub this”.

Related · Copyedit · Inverted pyramid · Hyperbole

CHICAGO 1906 · AP 1953 EDIT

House style, style guide

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. A house style promises sameness across writers, so the reader never notices that ten people wrote the annual report. Published guides supply the base: The Chicago Manual of Style, first issued in 1906 and now in its 18th edition (University of Chicago Press, 2024), and the AP Stylebook, public since 1953, for news writing. An agency’s own guide then adds its names, terms and preferences.

Where it goes wrong. The guide becomes the review: a meeting spent on serial commas while the paper’s case goes unexamined. Or there is no house style, every division improvises, and the same platform appears under three names in one brief. A third failure is following an American guide by default in an organisation that writes in British spelling.

What to do. Adopt one published guide as the default and keep house rules to what differs from it, ideally on a page or two. Put the house style where writers will meet it: in the template and the review checklist. Decide each dispute once, record it, and stop reopening it. Apply the guide at the copyedit, not the structural edit.

Related · Style sheet · Copyedit · Register: field, tenor, mode

Sources · University of Chicago Press. (2024). The Chicago manual of style (18th ed.).

COPYEDITING PRACTICE EDIT

Style sheet

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

EDIT · a level of review: what the reader is being asked to check

What it promises. The style sheet is the house style’s local record. For one document or series it lists the decisions made: that “e-learning” is hyphenated, that programme names take capitals, that numbers follow a stated rule, that a term means one thing only. Editors Canada lists creating and maintaining a style sheet among the fundamentals of editing (Editors Canada, 2024). It promises that later writers will make the same choices.

Where it goes wrong. Decisions are made but never written down, so each editor makes them again, differently. In a five-part series of guides, the second volume capitalises a key term, the fourth does not, and the glossary uses a third form. A style sheet kept by one person and never shared does no better, because the next author never sees it.

What to do. Start the sheet on the first day of a long document or series, not at the copyedit. Record each decision with an example and, where useful, the reason. Store it with the files and send it to every writer and editor. Where the house style and the sheet disagree, note which one wins for this project.

Related · House style, style guide · Copyedit · Cohesion vs coherence

Sources · Editors Canada. (2024). Professional editorial standards 2024. https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/

WORKPLACE SHORTHAND

Part three of three

Who owns what, by when

The abbreviations and phrases of emails, meetings and project work. Several assign responsibility, and the confusion they cause is usually about who owns what.

Fifteen terms, from EOD to RAG status. Most are harmless until two people read them differently: a deadline that means 5 pm to one and midnight to the other, or a RACI with two people marked accountable.

The instrument underneath is the curse of knowledge. Shorthand is efficient inside the group that coined it and opaque outside it, and the people who use it most are the least able to see which readers it loses. The fix in almost every entry is the same: name the owner, the time or the decision right in plain words.

OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USAGE SHORTHAND

EOD, COB, EOW

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The labels promise a deadline without a clock. Close of business comes from commerce, where it marked the end of the trading or banking day, and EOD and EOW are its email cousins. Each assumes that writer and reader share a working day, a time zone and a week. Inside one office that is often true, and the shorthand saves a line.

Where it goes wrong. The gap lands on whoever owns the task. To the sender, EOD may mean 6 pm, when they plan to read the draft. To the recipient it may mean midnight, or first thing tomorrow. Across time zones a vendor reads COB in its own hours. EOW is looser still, since some weeks end on Friday and others on Sunday. Each side then believes the other missed the deadline.

What to do. Write the clock and the day: “by 5 pm, Thursday 14 March, Singapore time”. If you need the work before your own day ends, say why: “so that I can clear it with the director before 6 pm”. When you receive an EOD, reply with the time you will deliver. The shorthand then becomes an agreement with one owner and one hour.

Related · Kairos · Audience · Acronym load

OFFICE EMAIL · TRANSPORT USAGE SHORTHAND

OOO, ETA

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. OOO tells a sender that the person they wrote to cannot own the message for now. ETA comes from transport, where dictionaries expand it as “estimated time of arrival”. At work it has stretched to mean when a piece of work will land. Either way it promises an estimate, not a commitment, and the difference matters to whoever plans around it.

Where it goes wrong. An out-of-office reply with no return date and no alternate contact leaves the message in an inbox nobody owns. An ETA given casually is heard as a promise, then missed without notice. Asking “ETA?” in a one-word chase can read as pressure, especially upwards or across agencies, where a fuller request protects face on both sides.

What to do. Make the out-of-office reply route the work: the return date, who covers what, and whether mail will be read on return. Give an ETA as a time with its condition: “Draft by Wednesday noon, if the data arrives on Monday.” When the estimate moves, send the new one before the old one passes, and say what moved it.

Related · Politeness and face · Hedging · SPOC

PLANNING SHORTHAND SHORTHAND

TBC vs TBD

PFA, NNTR

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. PFA shortens the commercial-letter formula “please find attached” and is common in Singapore and South Asian office email. It promises a document and asks the reader to open it. NNTR releases the reader from answering. The Email Charter, published by TED’s Chris Anderson and Jane Wulf in 2011, promoted it to cut the “thanks” and “noted” replies that fill inboxes.

Where it goes wrong. PFA travels badly. Readers outside the usage may not know it, and readers who do learn nothing about the file: what it is, which version, what to do with it. The message’s work is pushed into the attachment. NNTR fails the other way. Put on a message that hands over a task, it removes the one reply that would show the task was received.

What to do. Replace PFA with a sentence that names the file and the ask: “The attached timeline (v3) moves the pilot to Term 2. Please confirm by Friday.” Use NNTR on genuine updates and never on a message that transfers work. If a task needs acknowledging, ask for it plainly: “Reply ‘ok’ so I know this is with you.”

Related · Acronym load · Revert · FYI, FYA, FYR · Speech acts

RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT MATRIX SHORTHAND

RACI

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. RACI is the best-known form of the responsibility assignment matrix, a grid that sets tasks against people or roles. Project management texts described such grids, often as linear responsibility charts, by the 1970s and 1980s, and no single inventor is recorded. The matrix promises one answer to “who owns this?”: several people may do the work, but one is accountable.

Where it goes wrong. The commonest failure is more than one A, or an A that is a committee. Teams also read the letters differently: in one, R signs off, in another R does the work. A RACI drawn once for the charter and never revisited stops matching who actually does what. A long C column slows every decision, since each consulted person can hold it up.

What to do. Give each row exactly one A, a named person rather than a team. Read down each column too: someone with many Rs and no time is a risk. Define the letters in the charter’s key, because teams read R and A differently. Revisit the matrix at each phase change. When work stalls, check the RACI before chasing people.

Related · DACI · Action log, decision log · SPOC · Agentless passive

ATTRIBUTED TO INTUIT SHORTHAND

DACI

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. DACI is usually credited to Intuit, as a variant of RACI built for decisions rather than tasks, and Atlassian’s Team Playbook spread it through software teams. The Driver gathers the evidence and gets a decision made by an agreed date. The Approver, one person, decides. Contributors advise but do not vote. The Informed are told once the decision is made.

Where it goes wrong. The usual failure is several approvers. A paper names three directors, each assumes another has signed, and the decision stalls or is taken twice. Another is mistaking the Driver for the decider: the Driver writes the paper, the room treats it as settled, and the real Approver hears of it later. Contributors who expected a vote feel overruled.

What to do. Put the DACI in the opening lines of a decision paper: who drives, the one person who approves, who was consulted and who will be told. Name the decision date. Tell contributors at the start that they advise and do not decide. Once the Approver decides, record it in the decision log under their name and inform the I list that day.

Related · RACI · For decision, for approval · Action log, decision log

IT SERVICE MANAGEMENT · ITIL SHORTHAND

SPOC

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The term is at home in IT service management, where ITIL describes the service desk as the entry point and single point of contact between a service provider and its users. At work it names the one person through whom all traffic on a matter passes. It promises the outside party one door, and the inside team one person who holds the whole thread.

Where it goes wrong. A SPOC is a channel, not an owner, and confusion starts when the two are treated as one. The vendor’s SPOC relays a question, nobody inside decides, and the SPOC is blamed for the delay. A SPOC on leave without a named backup closes the only door. In cross-agency work each agency names a SPOC, and no one knows which of them holds the decision.

What to do. When you name a SPOC, say what they can decide and what they must pass on, and name who decides the rest. Give the SPOC a backup and put both names in the out-of-office reply. Ask the other side for the same three things: one contact, what that contact can decide, and who stands in when they are away.

Related · RACI · DACI · OOO, ETA

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SHORTHAND

Action log, decision log

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The two logs are a project’s memory. An action log lists each task with an owner and a due date. A decision log records what was decided, by whom, when and on what grounds. Together they promise that a commitment made in a room outlives the room, and that someone joining later can see why things stand as they do.

Where it goes wrong. Actions get written without one named owner: “Team to follow up”, “IT and policy to discuss”. Each reader assumes another will move. Decisions get minuted as discussion, or in the agentless passive, “it was agreed that the rollout would be delayed”, so months later the team reopens a settled question because no one can show who settled it. A log never reviewed becomes a list of intentions.

What to do. Write every action as a person, a verb and a date: “Mei Ling to send the revised survey to schools by 12 April.” Open each meeting with the open actions. Record each decision with the decider, the date and one line of reasoning. When a settled question resurfaces, point to the log entry before reopening it.

Related · Minute (verb) · Matters arising · Agentless passive · RACI

FACILITATION PRACTICE SHORTHAND

Parking lot

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The parking lot is a facilitator’s device: a flipchart, or a corner of a shared board, where a point outside the agenda is written down rather than argued or lost. It promises the person who raised it that the point has been heard and will be dealt with. In return the meeting keeps to its purpose and its time.

Where it goes wrong. The promise is the weak part. Items go into the parking lot and never come out, so it becomes a polite way to dismiss a point. People learn this fast and either stop raising things or insist on discussing them now. No one owns the list after the meeting, and items vanish with the flipchart. A sensitive point parked twice reads as avoidance.

What to do. Close each meeting by walking through the parking lot. For each item, choose one of three outcomes: an action with an owner and a date, a slot on a future agenda, or dropped with the agreement of the person who raised it. Send the outcomes with the notes, so that person sees what happened to their point.

Related · AOB · Action log, decision log · Take it offline, circle back, loop in

OFFICE AND MEETING JARGON SHORTHAND

Take it offline, circle back, loop in

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The three phrases manage who is in a conversation and when. “Take it offline” borrows from computing: move a matter out of the main meeting into a smaller one. “Circle back” promises a return to the topic. “Loop in” adds a person to a thread so they know what the others know. Each is a small speech act, a promise or a handover.

Where it goes wrong. Each phrase can carry a commitment no one owns. “Let’s take that offline” ends a hard discussion with no time, no attendees and no owner, and the matter quietly drops. “I’ll circle back” sets no date. “Looping in Priya” forwards a long thread with no word on what she should do, so she is now responsible without knowing for what.

What to do. Make each phrase carry its details. “Let’s take that offline: Ahmad and I will meet on Thursday and report at the next meeting.” “I’ll come back to you by Friday with the costs.” When you loop someone in, add one line at the top: why they are there, what you need from them and by when.

Related · Parking lot · FYI, FYA, FYR · Speech acts · Weasel words

MANAGEMENT CONSULTING · MCKINSEY SHORTHAND

Pre-wire

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. The term comes from management consulting. Rasiel’s (1999) account of McKinsey practice gives the rule as “prewire everything”: a presentation to decision-makers should contain nothing new to them, because each has been taken through it in private first. It promises the presenter a meeting without ambush, and each key reader a chance to object where objecting costs no face.

Where it goes wrong. Pre-wiring goes wrong when it becomes the decision. The committee meets to ratify a choice made in corridors, and members who were not briefed, often the junior ones, find the matter closed. Briefing only the supporters hides the real objection until the meeting. A pre-wire that changes the paper without telling everyone leaves others reading an outdated version.

What to do. List who can block the proposal, who must carry it out and who would be surprised by it. Brief each of them a few days ahead with the main point and the decision sought, and ask what would stop them supporting it. Fold the changes into the paper and send the revised version to all members. Use the meeting to decide, not to break news.

Related · Socialise (a paper) · Politeness and face · For decision, for approval · Kairos

Sources · Rasiel, E. M. (1999). The McKinsey way. McGraw-Hill.

GOVERNMENT AND POLICY USAGE SHORTHAND

Socialise (a paper)

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. In this sense, to socialise an idea is to let colleagues see it and grow used to it before it is formally proposed. The usage is familiar in government offices and corporate settings, though general dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster do not yet record it. It promises that the paper’s readers will meet it twice: once informally, to shape it, and once for decision.

Where it goes wrong. Socialising is wider and earlier than pre-wiring, and its risks follow from that. A draft that circulates widely gets quoted as the plan. Versions multiply and no one knows which is current. Commenters expect to see the next version and never do. Spread too far, ownership thins until no one answers for the paper. Outside the circles that use it, the word itself can sound odd.

What to do. Say what stage the paper is at and what feedback you want: “Early draft for comment, not for circulation beyond this group. Is the problem framed right?” Number each version and keep a list of who has seen it. Tell commenters what changed and why. Keep one named owner who takes the paper up the line.

Related · Pre-wire · For discussion · Jargon

ENGLISH IDIOM · RECORDED BY 1941 SHORTHAND

Dry run

SMART

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. Doran (1981) proposed the acronym in Management Review as a test for writing management objectives. His letters stood for specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related, and assignable meant defining responsibility clearly. Later versions swapped in achievable and added relevant, so the commonest form today has dropped the question of ownership. Doran also allowed that not every objective can be quantified.

Where it goes wrong. SMART gets used as a form to fill rather than a test. An appraisal objective reads “Raise teacher use of the platform by 20% by December”: specific, measurable and timed, yet nobody can say who owns it, or whether 20% lies within the team’s control. The M can also pull writers toward what is easy to count rather than what matters.

What to do. Add Doran’s original A to the modern letters: name the person who owns each objective. Test the measure against the goal by asking whether hitting the number would mean the work succeeded. Write the deadline as a date. For exploratory work, where outcomes cannot be fixed in advance, set a learning goal and a review date instead.

Related · RACI · Unfalsifiable claim · Weasel words

Sources · Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.

PROJECT REPORTING · TRAFFIC LIGHTS SHORTHAND

RAG status

In work communication

Where it goes wrong

SHORTHAND · an abbreviation or phrase of working life: say who owns what, and by when

What it promises. RAG borrows the traffic light: green for on track, amber for at risk, red for off track or in need of help. On a dashboard it promises a senior reader a scan of many projects in seconds, with attention drawn to the reds. Some organisations add blended grades such as amber-green. The colour is a compressed status report, and someone has to own it.

Where it goes wrong. The colour is a judgement, usually made by the person who runs the project. Projects sit at amber for months, because red invites scrutiny and green invites blame later. Teams call the result a watermelon: green outside, red inside. Colours with no stated definitions mean different things across teams, and colour alone fails readers who cannot tell red from green.

What to do. Define each colour on the dashboard in checkable terms, for example “amber: a milestone will slip by up to four weeks”. Pair every amber and red with one line naming the issue, the owner and the help needed. Print the word beside each colour. Treat an early red as information the team was right to send.

Related · Euphemism · Meiosis · Hedging

WHERE NEXT

The toolkit closes in volume two, Cadence and Candour

VOL 1 Diagnosis and Diction · 01–07 · I–IV The instruments that explain why communication works, and the moves of situation, economy, clarity and register
VOL 2 Cadence and Candour · V–IX The moves of arrangement, emphasis, delivery, candour and logic, and the seven-pass review
INDEX The phrasebooks glossary · every term in the four toolkits, A to Z

This volume ends with its last section. The toolkit closes with the seven-pass review of a draft, at the end of volume two.

The phrasebooks glossary lists every term in all four toolkits and opens it in the volume that holds it.

SOURCES

Twenty-eight works

Every entry names what it rests on, and the reference list holds all of them. Terms were drawn from the standard glossaries of rhetorical and poetic devices and extended with the classical vices of style.

VOLUMES Diagnosis and Diction Cadence and Candour The phrasebooks glossary
COMPANIONS The faulty arguments field guide The working defaults field guide The cognitive bias field guide
BY geraldajam.com

The reference list is generated from the entries at build time rather than typed alongside them, so it cannot drift from what the toolkit actually used. Where an etymology or an attribution is uncertain, the entry says so, and the items that could not be settled are printed in Appendix F.

Three companions share the engine. Fallacies of argument live in the Faulty Arguments field guide; Grice’s maxims also appear in Working Defaults, as a rule for reading people; the curse of knowledge also appears in the Cognitive Bias field guide, as a bias.

Reference layer

Appendix

Appendix A

The A to Z index

All 56 entries in this volume alphabetically, with the layer and family each belongs to and its tag. Every name is a link: it opens the entry in the reading version. The phrasebooks glossary lists the entries of every volume.

Layer	Family	Section	Tag
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Attribution ground rules	C3	GROUND RULE
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Attribution ground rules	C3	GROUND RULE
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Attribution ground rules	C3	GROUND RULE
Vocabulary	Attribution ground rules	C3	GROUND RULE
Vocabulary	Attribution ground rules	C3	GROUND RULE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Paper and correspondence labels	C2	LABEL
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Levels of editing	C4	EDIT
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Workplace shorthand	C5	SHORTHAND
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE
Vocabulary	Document genres	C1	GENRE

Appendix E

What this toolkit is not

Five limits, worth stating before the kit is used on anybody’s draft.

01Not a lookup table A verdict can be looked up. Whether it holds for the reader in front of you cannot, and every entry is written to supply the question rather than the answer.

02Not a history of rhetoric The first section of each entry gives provenance, not scholarship. Where the classical and modern senses of a term differ, the entry says which one it uses.

03Not complete The moves were drawn from the standard glossaries of rhetorical and poetic terms and the classical vices of style, filtered for what turns up in work communication. Fallacies of argument are left to their own guide.

04Not neutral The verdicts are a view of work communication: papers, updates, meetings and talks in an organisation. A poet or a novelist would score several of them differently, and should.

05Not a licence A named vice lends authority to whoever names it. The toolkit’s one standing instruction is to ask what a move does to this reader at this moment before calling it a fault.

Appendix F

Verification register

Every reference and every dated, numbered or quoted claim was checked against primary records, publishers’ pages and standard references while the entries were written. The items below are the corrections made to the source glossary and the points that could not be fully settled, printed here rather than smoothed over.

Entry	What is outstanding or corrected
Speech rewards what writing punishes	The source glossary says four moves get worse aloud. Its own table has five: BLUF also drops, from virtue on the page to depends aloud. With nominalisation revised (row 11), this edition has six. Every count here is generated from the entries.
Stasis theory	The source names four stases (fact, definition, value, action). Fahnestock and Secor (1988), the work cited, name five: they add cause. The entry uses their five and names the classical four.
Framing functions	The source says every frame performs all four functions. Entman (1993) says a frame in a given text need not include all four. The entry follows Entman.
Rhetorical situation	The source glosses Bitzer as purpose, audience, constraints and occasion. Bitzer’s own three are exigence, audience and constraints. The entry maps exigence to purpose.
Malapropism, solecism	“For all intensive purposes” is strictly an eggcorn rather than a malapropism. The cost is the same and the example is kept, with a note.
Apophasis, paralipsis	The handbooks disagree: some reserve apophasis for rejecting several reasons and keeping one. The modern merged sense is used, and the entry notes the split.
Aporia	The classical figure (dubitatio) is feigned doubt, which the source marks as the tactical misuse. The virtue verdict applies to the honest admission of doubt.
Etymologies	Several roots were taken from standard references without a primary check (among them euphony, caesura, parataxis, hypophora and paradiastole, where sources disagree). None carries an argument.
Classical citations	Passages from Cicero, Quintilian and the Rhetorica ad Herennium are paraphrased from the Loeb translations; some section numbers were confirmed only to within a section.
Illustrative figures	Numbers inside worked examples (a 12 per cent drop, 40 minutes of re-keying, 30 schools) are invented for illustration and are not data.
Revised verdicts	Three verdicts differ from the source glossary, at the author’s decision. Procatalepsis moves from virtue to depends in both modes, because its own caveat (a straw man turns it to vice) makes it a tool. Nominalisation moves to depends on the page and stays vice aloud, because some nominalisations are necessary in writing. End-stopping moves to depends on the page and stays virtue aloud, because it pulls against cadence in prose. Buzzword and technobabble are also marked modern.

Source trail

References

Every work the entries rest on, generated from the entries themselves at build time, deduplicated and sorted, together with the source glossary’s own list. It is what this toolkit actually used, so that any claim in it can be checked against the record.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5), 1232–1254. https://doi.org/10.1086/261651
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
Editors Canada. (2024). Professional editorial standards 2024. https://editors.ca/publications/professional-editorial-standards/fundamentals-editing/
Editors Canada. (n.d.). Definitions of editorial skills. https://editors.ca/hire-an-editor/skills/
For the record, what “off the record” means. (1999, June 22). Slate. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1999/06/for-the-record-what-off-the-record-means.html
Hornby, A. S. (2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lanham, R. A. (1991). A handlist of rhetorical terms (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Backgrounder. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backgrounder
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Green paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/green%20paper
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Position paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/position%20paper
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Talking point. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talking%20point
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Think piece. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/think%20piece
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). White paper. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20paper
Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle: Logic in writing and thinking (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style. Viking.
Pöttker, H. (2003). News and its communicative quality: The inverted pyramid. When and why did it appear? Journalism Studies, 4(4), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670032000136596
Rasiel, E. M. (1999). The McKinsey way. McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, T., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The artful dodger: Answering the wrong question the right way. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023439
Roosevelt, F. D. (1933, March 8). Press conference [Transcript]. The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/press-conference-25
SciLine. (n.d.). Attribution rules. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.sciline.org/learn/attribution-rules/
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Socolow, M. J. (2010). A profitable public sphere: The creation of the New York Times op-ed page. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901008700204
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Green paper. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved October 4, 2026, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/green-paper
University of Chicago Press. (2024). The Chicago manual of style (18th ed.).
Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Glossary of rhetorical terms. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_rhetorical_terms
Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Poetic device. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_device