Hey, it's Pam!

Engineers typically write documents in the order they did the work, but in many cases, readers need the answer before they need the details. This week we cover the fix.

Got a document that keeps coming back for revision? Hit reply and send it to me. I'll tell you where the structure breaks (happy to sign an NDA first).

Speaking of documents that look fine and aren't: our next webinar is about de-risking your documentation. If you work in a regulated industry, this webinar is for you! Save your seat here.

📅 Wednesday, August 26, 2026
🕚 11:00 AM–12:00 PM ET

In this issue:

• Your reader probably wants the BLUF 
• How a top aerospace firm turned proposals into wins
• The good, the bad, the ugly: Copy Makeovers

Here's a pattern I see constantly in engineering documents. The writer starts with background, walks through the details, runs through calculations, and saves the recommendation or what matters for last. While this type of organization mirrors how the work was done, it fails because it forces the reader to read through info they may not need, or may not need first.

For example, a program manager reviewing a change request needs to know what's changing, why it matters, what it affects, and what approval is needed. If they have to wade through three pages of methodology before they find that answer, the document failed. Not because the content was wrong. Because the structure didn't respect the reader's job.

The fix: lead with what's most important for your reader, then support it. State the recommendation or finding up front. Follow it with the evidence that justifies it. Move the detailed methodology and raw data to an appendix for anyone who needs to verify the work. Same information, faster to act on. This technique is called BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front).

Struggling with this? Reply to this email and ask me about PAM; the new system I've created that will help you identify problems in engineering writing before they hit review.

Read the full post

A top aerospace firm found that clients often walked away from its proposals with the wrong idea about its offerings, and some said the live presentations were dull and didn't clarify the proposal. The firm had used the same PowerPoints for years, as both written proposals and live presentations, without adjusting the slides for a live audience.

We built workshops around readability, usability, and best practices for using PowerPoint. Participants learned to create two distinct versions: one written proposal aimed at non-technical readers, and one slide deck meant to support a speaker rather than replace them. The team left with internal guidance for building both.

The result: presenters spent less time building slides because they understood PowerPoint's role was to support them, not carry the talk. Proposals got leaner and more targeted to their audience. The firm later brought us back to coach its speakers directly.

Read the case study

Each issue, we create a sample of regulated-industry writing and show how a few changes make it clearer.

Original

An additional monitoring replicate of the room is performed to evaluate if the occurrence was isolated. Use of a routine Test Plan is acceptable for verification of control effectiveness of a corrective action in response to an upset condition, but the purpose of the additional replicate must be clearly described in the associated monitoring report. Review data since excursion (e.g., short time frame, approximately 1 week). If there are 3 similar instances, then it should be upgraded to an excursion limit. Perform cleaning and assess for possible root cause if the additional data gathered produces or demonstrates a trend. The event must be documented on Form X. Data associated with Form X must be documented on Form Y.

Whew! That's a lot of information and how the reader is supposed to interact with it is unclear. 

Rewrite

To evaluate if the occurrence was isolated:

1. Perform an additional monitoring replicate of the room.

Note: A routine Test Plan is acceptable to verify the control effectiveness of a corrective action in response to an upset condition.

2. Describe the additional EM replicate's purpose in the associated environmental monitoring report.

3. Review data since excursion (one week or less).

Note: Upgrade to an "Excursion Limit" if there are three similar instances.

4. Clean X.

If additional data produces or demonstrates a trend

5. Assess for a possible root cause.

6. Document the event on Form X.

7. Document data associated with Form X on Form Y.

Why it works

The original reads as a mix of policy (why we do things) and procedure (how we do them). That distinction matters: readers decide what to do based on the kind of document they think they're reading. In a procedure, they expect steps. In a policy, they expect the rationale. The rewrite turns it into a clean SOP by naming the task first, then laying out main steps with numbered items, rewriting sub-steps, and separating notes from actions. Now it's a clear procedure with steps the reader can follow without guessing.

More on clearer writing