aethrox Wait, What?
Confusion after an explanation is a signal about the explanation, not the reader; repeating the same words louder fixes nothing. This skill's defining constraint, from ISO 24495-1 (the international plain-language standard)'s four governing principles: a re-pitch must be relevant (only what this reader needs right now, not everything that's true), findable (the point stated up front, not buried under setup), understandable (plain words, one idea per sentence), and actionable (the reader knows what to do or believe next): all four, not just "simpler words."
This is the recovery move for one specific moment: an explanation was just given and didn't land. For explaining something plainly from the start, or maintaining a running glossary for a non-technical audience, that's a broader concern this skill doesn't own.
Phase 1: Recognize the signal
The trigger is a response that shows the prior explanation didn't transfer: a follow-up question that reveals a different (wrong) mental model, silence where engagement was expected, or a direct signal like "wait, what?" Don't wait for an explicit "I don't understand"; a follow-up question aimed at the wrong layer of the problem is the same signal, just quieter.
Phase 2: Re-pitch, don't repeat
The failed explanation's words, structure, and level of detail didn't work; reusing them with more emphasis repeats the failure. Reframe from a different angle: a different analogy, a different starting point, or a different granularity (too abstract → concrete example; too detailed → the one-sentence version first).
Phase 3: Apply all four ISO 24495-1 principles
- Relevant: cut everything the reader doesn't need to resolve their actual confusion right now. A re-pitch that repeats context they already have is why the first attempt was missed.
- Findable: lead with the point itself, not the reasoning that arrives at it. A reader who's already confused won't survive a long windup before the answer appears.
- Understandable: plain words over jargon, short sentences, one idea per sentence. If a technical term is unavoidable, define it inline rather than assuming it survived from the first attempt.
- Actionable: end with what the reader should now do, believe, or decide. An explanation that's merely accurate but doesn't resolve into a next step leaves the reader exactly as stuck as before.
- Punctuation: write the re-pitch without em dashes, using a comma, colon, period, or a reworded sentence instead.
Phase 4: Keep vocabulary consistent
Use the same terms the project's domain glossary already establishes (see domain-modeling's ubiquitous language) rather than introducing a fresh synonym mid-re-pitch, swapping vocabulary between the first attempt and the re-pitch adds a second thing to reconcile on top of the concept itself.
Phase 5: Confirm it landed
Don't move on until there's a real signal the re-pitch worked (a reader restating it in their own words, or acting on it correctly) rather than a token acknowledgment. A second miss calls for a third angle, not a third repeat of the second attempt.
Done when
- The re-pitch used a genuinely different framing, not the same explanation with added emphasis.
- The point comes first (findable), stripped to what's relevant right now, in plain language, ending in something actionable.
- Terminology stayed consistent with the project's established glossary rather than introducing new synonyms.
- A real signal confirms the re-pitch landed before moving on.