attac-t Conclusion
A reader who sees only the first line should know the state.
plain-english asks can I understand this? economy asks did you say only what matters?
This asks can I tell what is true, and what I need to do?
A reply leads with its state
| Instead of | Write |
|---|---|
| the evidence, then the answer | the answer, then the evidence |
| "I checked X, then Y, so…" | "Yes. X is safe, because Y." |
| "three checks failed and…" | "Blocked. X must happen first." |
| "the build is unaffected by…" | "No action. The failure is not ours." |
Yes. No. Done. Blocked. No action. Choose. A state, never a label you repeat.
A claim that is neither yes nor no stays neither. Forcing one is the failure this creates.
Say which kind of claim it is
A reader has to know whether a sentence is true now. Six kinds sit in most documents, and they read the same unless you separate them.
| Kind | Answers | Tell the reader by |
|---|---|---|
| fact | what is true now | plain present tense, and what would disprove it |
| promise | what we mean to make true | naming it as owed, never as shipped |
| vision | what could be true one day | saying it is not now, and which words are still false |
| bet | what we are currently doing about it | how we would find out it was wrong |
| goal | what must become true next | who will notice, and what they will do differently |
| rule | what must always hold | who obeys it, and what it refuses |
A vision written in the present tense is a lie the document tells. So is a gap in the roadmap dressed as a principle.
Keep the qualifier that makes a claim true. Cannot and did not are different promises. Drop the wrong one and the sentence over-claims.
Put stable direction apart from a current plan, and both apart from today's status. A reader who cannot tell them apart treats all three as permanent, or none of them.
Say what you do not know. We do not know beats a polished guess. It is the one claim nobody can misread.
A question leads with a recommendation
Do the reasoning first. Ask for judgement, authority or facts you cannot derive — never for the analysis you could have done yourself.
Decision: merge this now?
Recommendation: yes.
Yes → it lands. No → it stays open.
Reply: yes / no
Say what a choice causes when that is not obvious.
Ask for the smallest reply that settles it
yes/no → named options → one value → a short phrase → prose
Prose is the last resort. A person should almost never have to compose one.
The rules
| one ask, one decision | two independent decisions are two questions |
| no false binary | three real choices are offered as three |
| no question at all | when nothing needs a person |
| uncertainty survives | a bounded answer must not turn unsure into yes |
| facts survive | signal over noise never means short and wrong |
The test
A person reading only the state and the reply you asked for knows what is happening, and how to answer.
If they must read the reasoning to learn the state, the state is in the wrong place.
Only one part of this is counted: more than one question in a reply warns. Everything else is read by a person, because nothing else here can be counted without being wrong.