Common problems in business documents.
Most business documents are written by smart, capable people who know their subject well. That is precisely why so many of them have the same problems. Proximity to the material, writing under pressure, and the habits that come from years of producing documents in a particular context all produce predictable, fixable patterns of weakness.
These are the problems that appear most consistently in the business and technical documents that come to Sunrise Writing for editing — across proposals, reports, policies, client materials, and white papers.
Problems that appear in almost every type of business document.
"Following a comprehensive review of the available options, taking into account the factors outlined in Section 2, and in light of the stakeholder feedback received during the consultation process, the working group has concluded that..."
The recommendation appears on the third line of the executive summary — after two sentences of process description. In a longer document, it may not appear until page four. The reader has been asked to hold all the context before receiving the point that context was meant to support.
Writers who have lived with a document often feel that context must precede conclusion. For the reader encountering the document fresh, this is inverted. The fix is structural: state the recommendation first, then provide the reasoning that supports it. This is not a stylistic preference — it is how business documents are most efficiently used.
"The proposal, which was submitted in response to the request for proposals issued by the client on 14 March and which outlines the approach to be taken by the firm in delivering the services described in the attached scope of works, has been reviewed and found to be compliant with the technical requirements set out in Section 4."
This sentence is grammatically faultless. It is also 64 words long and contains three embedded clauses that the reader must hold in suspension before reaching the verb. By the time they arrive at "compliant," they may have lost the subject.
Complex ideas accumulate qualifications as writers add necessary context. The fix is to break the sentence at its natural joints and sequence the information rather than embedding it. "The proposal submitted in response to the 14 March RFP has been reviewed. It meets the technical requirements in Section 4." Two sentences. The same information. One-third of the cognitive load.
"The contractor shall ensure that appropriate measures are taken to address any significant issues that arise in a timely manner."
"Appropriate," "significant," and "timely" are undefined. This sentence can be read as placing almost no obligation on the contractor or as placing an extensive one — depending on who is reading it and when the dispute arises. It will mean whatever the reader needs it to mean in the moment.
Vague language is often a compromise — it avoids the discomfort of specificity. But the discomfort of specificity is vastly smaller than the cost of ambiguity in a contractual or procedural document. The fix is to define each vague term: what constitutes a significant issue, what response is required, and within what timeframe. Every undefined term is a future dispute waiting for its occasion.
Section 1 refers to "the client." Section 3 refers to "the organisation." Section 5 refers to "the customer." The appendix refers to "the purchaser." They are all the same party.
This is almost always the product of a document assembled from multiple sources or written across an extended period. The individual sections are internally consistent. The whole is not. A careful reader begins to wonder whether the variations are intentional — and in a contract or technical specification, that question has consequences.
The fix is a terminology audit: identify every name used for the same entity, select one, define it at first use, and apply it consistently throughout. In long documents, a brief definitions section at the front eliminates this problem for every term that matters. It also signals to the reader that the document has been produced with care — which is itself a credibility signal.
A two-page executive summary that describes the background to the project, explains why the report was commissioned, outlines the methodology used, and summarises the scope — without stating the findings, conclusions, or recommendations.
The reader who only reads the executive summary — which is common for senior decision-makers — finishes it knowing everything except what the document is trying to tell them. They have been given the frame without the picture.
An executive summary should allow a reader to make a fully informed decision without reading the rest of the document. That means it contains the key findings, the conclusions drawn from them, and the recommendations being made — with enough context to understand what they mean, and no more. Background, methodology, and scope belong in the body of the document, not the summary.
"Errors were identified in the data. A review was conducted. Improvements have been implemented."
Who identified the errors? Who conducted the review? Who implemented the improvements? The passive voice has made every sentence true without making any of them accountable. This is sometimes intentional — which is a different problem — and sometimes simply habit. Either way, the reader who needs to know who did what cannot find out from the document.
Passive voice is not wrong. It is appropriate when the actor is genuinely unknown, irrelevant, or when the object of the sentence is the natural focus. The problem is habitual passive voice, applied throughout a document to avoid naming responsibility. The fix is straightforward: where the actor matters, name them. "The internal audit team identified errors in the Q3 dataset and completed a full data review in November." Same facts. Named accountability.
"It may be possible that, in certain circumstances, some improvement in outcomes could potentially be achieved through the implementation of the proposed approach, subject to various factors."
This sentence asserts approximately nothing. The qualifications — "may," "possible," "certain circumstances," "some," "could," "potentially," "subject to various factors" — have reduced a claim to its own hedge. The writer is covering every angle so thoroughly that no angle remains.
Over-qualification is often a defence against being wrong. But a document that avoids being wrong by avoiding saying anything is not useful. The fix is to state what you actually believe to be true, with the qualification that is genuinely necessary — and not one more. "The proposed approach is expected to improve client retention by reducing onboarding time. The extent of improvement will depend on implementation pace." Specific. Honest. Useful.
A procurement document that refers to "the SOW," "the RFI process," "the OEM requirements," and "the SLA framework" in the executive summary — without defining any of them — then includes a glossary on page 23.
Specialist terminology is not the problem. Terminology used before it has been defined is. A reader who does not already know what these abbreviations mean has been excluded from the document before it has made its case. Even a reader who does know may be uncertain which of several possible meanings applies in this context.
Writers who are immersed in their field stop noticing where the specialist vocabulary begins. The fix is to define each term at its first use — "Statement of Work (SOW)" — and then use the abbreviation consistently thereafter. A glossary is useful for reference but does not replace in-text definition. The reader should not need to hunt for a definition the first time they encounter a term that the document's argument depends on.
"Our team is uniquely positioned to deliver this project. We have extensive experience in this sector and a proven track record of delivering results for clients across the industry."
This reads as an assertion about the team's capability, but contains no evidence of it. "Uniquely positioned," "extensive experience," and "proven track record" are claims that every competing proposal will also make. Without specifics — a project name, a client type, a measurable outcome — none of it is distinguishable from noise.
The writer knows their team is capable and states this directly. The reader does not share that knowledge and cannot be expected to take the claim on trust. Every significant claim in a business document should be supported by the evidence that makes it credible: a number, a named project, a named outcome, a reference. If the evidence is not in the document, the claim carries no weight with a reader who has not already decided to believe it.
"It is the position of the organisation that the utilisation of the aforementioned resources in the facilitation of the objectives outlined herein represents the most efficacious approach to the realisation of the desired outcomes."
This sentence is attempting to sound authoritative. It does not. The inflation of register — "utilisation" for "use," "facilitation" for "supporting," "efficacious" for "effective," "realisation" for "achieving" — adds syllables without adding meaning. It reads as a caricature of formal writing rather than the genuine article.
Writers who associate formality with credibility inflate their vocabulary in an attempt to sound more authoritative. The effect is the opposite. Clear, direct language signals confidence. Inflated language signals someone trying to appear confident. "Using these resources to support the project's objectives is the most effective approach available." Same meaning. Less noise. More credible.
The problems that appear most often by document type.
While all ten problems can appear in any business document, certain types attract certain patterns. These are the most predictable concentrations — which is where an editor focuses first.
- Recommendations buried in background context (Problem 1)
- Assertions without supporting evidence (Problem 9)
- Over-qualification weakening every capability claim (Problem 7)
- Inconsistent terminology across sections written by multiple authors (Problem 4)
- Executive summaries that omit findings and recommendations (Problem 5)
- Passive voice removing accountability from conclusions (Problem 6)
- Sentences too long to parse on first read (Problem 2)
- Jargon introduced without definition (Problem 8)
- Vague obligation language: "appropriate," "timely," "significant" (Problem 3)
- Passive voice obscuring who is responsible for what (Problem 6)
- Inconsistent terminology across clauses (Problem 4)
- Formality that reduces rather than reinforces clarity (Problem 10)
- Arguments stated as assertions without evidence (Problem 9)
- Over-qualification undermining every conclusion (Problem 7)
- Structure that buries the central argument (Problem 1)
- Formality substituted for substance (Problem 10)
- Undefined acronyms and specialist abbreviations (Problem 8)
- Vague specification language open to interpretation (Problem 3)
- Inconsistent naming of the same components or systems (Problem 4)
- Sentence complexity that obscures technical precision (Problem 2)
- Recommendations appearing after extensive background (Problem 1)
- Formal inflation obscuring a simple message (Problem 10)
- Passive voice throughout without named ownership (Problem 6)
- Sentences that carry too many embedded qualifications (Problem 2)
A quick self-audit — ten questions worth asking.
These questions map directly to the ten problems above. If any answer is "not sure" or "probably not," that is where to look first.
Does the executive summary state the recommendation — not just the process?
A decision-maker reading only the summary should be able to act on what they find there.
Can every sentence be understood on a single pass?
Any sentence that requires re-reading to parse its meaning should be broken into shorter, sequenced statements.
Are obligation terms — "appropriate," "timely," "significant" — defined?
In any document with contractual or procedural weight, undefined obligation terms are a future disagreement.
Is the same entity called the same thing throughout?
Scan for synonyms used for the same party, system, or document. Standardise to one term, defined at first use.
Does the executive summary contain findings and recommendations — not just background?
If the answer is no, move the key conclusions to the front and push the context into the body of the report.
Where accountability matters, is the actor named?
Every passive construction where the actor is important should be converted to name who is responsible for what.
Does each claim say something specific — or has it been qualified into vagueness?
Strip qualifications that are not genuinely necessary. What remains should be a claim the document is prepared to stand behind.
Is every acronym and technical term defined at its first use?
Check the first three pages specifically. Specialist vocabulary introduced without definition excludes readers before the argument has begun.
Is every significant claim supported by evidence in the document?
Any claim that a skeptical reader might question should be accompanied by the evidence that answers that skepticism — not left as an assertion.
Could any sentence be said more directly without losing precision?
If the answer is yes, say it more directly. Simpler language signals confidence, not informality. Inflated language signals the opposite.
If your document has any of these problems, an edit will fix them.
Sunrise Writing provides expert business and technical document editing — proposals, reports, policies, white papers, client materials, and more. Every engagement starts with a review of the document and a clear scope before any work begins. Send us your document and we will tell you exactly what it needs.