Repair the missing premise before shortening
Treat comprehension failure as a missing-context problem before optimizing word count.
These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.
Use case
A reader does not understand why an export ticket waits for a schema change; the explanation only says blocked by dependency. The teaching premise is that the exporter needs customer_code, which the current schema lacks. This missing connection causes the confusion.
Mechanism
Identify the misunderstood decision and missing premise, using established project nouns. Explain premise→current state→consequence→continuation condition, then remove repetition and unnecessary jargon. Mark unverified premises as uncertain. Check comprehension with a concrete example and change angle if needed rather than repeatedly shortening the label.
Bad example
Why cannot the export ticket start? Answer: dependency blocked. Shorter: wait.
Good example
The exporter needs customer_code, absent from the current schema. Building against final inputs now would lack that input, so wait for the schema or a confirmed contract; independent work can proceed if that contract exists. The continuation condition is confirmation of the field contract or available schema.
Why the change matters
Shortening does not supply a missing causal link. Naming the field, current state and continuation condition gives waiting both a reason and an endpoint, unlike a shorter blocking label.
Observable expectation
The teaching reader should identify customer_code, why final-input verification is unavailable and what permits continuation. Ask for a restatement or remaining confusion; if unclear, use one input/output example rather than just deleting words.
Limits
Comprehension depends on background; not everyone lacks the same premise. Do not invent dependencies or block independent work. Define unclear project terms instead of substituting jargon for explanation.