Identify the reader’s actual decision
Ask what the reader needs to understand or decide and which parts of the technical work bear on it. Do not assume that a shorter version of the specialist report is automatically useful. A decision-maker may need the meaning of a result, its uncertainty and the action it supports rather than every procedural detail. Keep authority clear: explaining evidence is not the same as having permission to choose policy, spend money or make a formal determination on someone else’s behalf.
State the finding and its scope
Explain what the work actually establishes and the setting in which it applies. Distinguish a measured result from a modelled estimate, a preliminary interpretation or an illustrative scenario where those distinctions matter. Avoid changing the status of the work to make the sentence easier to read. A concise explanation should preserve the qualification that materially affects meaning. If the audience may infer a wider claim, make the boundary visible before moving to possible implications or recommendations.
Explain the connection to the decision
Write the reasoning that links the finding to a possible action. The evidence may inform one part of a decision while leaving costs, priorities or constraints to others. Do not present those additional judgments as though they were direct outputs of the technical method. If a recommendation depends on an assumption, name it. A useful brief makes the bridge inspectable, including the point where analysis ends and a wider organisational judgment begins.
Use plain language with a precise boundary
Replace unnecessary jargon, but retain or define a term when an everyday substitute would change the meaning. Use a simple example if it clarifies the relationship and label it appropriately. Do not let an analogy become evidence. Avoid presenting uncertainty as either total ignorance or a detail too technical to mention. Explain the uncertainty that matters to the proposed decision and what additional information, if obtainable, could change the account in a useful way.
Check the interpretation with the reader
Ask the reader to describe the finding and the action they believe it supports. Compare that with what you intended. If they infer a guarantee or a broader result than the evidence permits, revise the explanation rather than blaming their lack of technical background. Keep supporting detail available through authorised material. The purpose is not to win agreement through fluency; it is to enable an informed conversation in which the basis of the decision can be questioned responsibly.
Draft a two-layer explanation
Use a fictional technical finding. Write a short main account containing the result, scope, uncertainty and decision relevance. Add a supporting note that explains the method at the level an authorised reviewer would need. Label the scenario fictional and avoid invented real-world performance claims. Ask a reader what conclusion they draw from the main account alone, then check whether the supporting note is consistent. The exercise develops clear reporting while preserving the difference between explaining evidence, recommending an option and possessing authority to act on it.
