Writing & Structure Anti-Patterns

The structural anti-patterns below are specific to written communication. They are distinct from the general anti-patterns in the Foundations section — these are failures of how the document is organized, not of intent or audience analysis. Most of them produce text that is technically correct but functionally unreadable.

The Anti-Patterns

The Setup Swamp

The writer spends the first half of the document establishing context, history, and definitions before getting to the point. By the time the reader finds the thesis, they have lost patience.

Bad:
  "Since 2019, our platform has supported three types of authentication.
   Initially, we chose OAuth because... and then in 2021 we added SAML
   because... and more recently we've been experimenting with passkeys.
   The team has historically been small but has grown... [12 paragraphs
   later] ...anyway, we should deprecate the SAML integration."

Good:
  "We should deprecate our SAML integration by Q3. Context: [3 lines
   of what the reader actually needs to know]."

Fix: Write the document. Then delete the first 30% of it. What remains is usually where the real message starts.

The Never-Ending Paragraph

A single paragraph spanning 15+ lines with multiple distinct ideas fused together. The reader cannot tell where one thought ends and another begins.

Fix: One idea, one paragraph. If a paragraph has more than 4-5 lines, check whether it is actually two paragraphs glued together.

The Nested Bullet Swamp

Bullets inside bullets inside bullets, with no clear hierarchy or logical grouping. Often a sign the writer could not structure the argument and hoped formatting would save them.

Bad:
  - The system has problems
    - Some of them are performance
      - Database queries
        - The slow one on the user table
        - The other slow one on the orders table
      - Caching
        - We don't have enough of it
    - Some of them are cost
      - Hosting costs are up

Fix: If you have more than 2 levels of nesting, the structure is wrong. Flatten into sections with proper headings, or refactor into a Minto pyramid.

Headings That Are Topics, Not Claims

Section headers that describe the subject without revealing the conclusion. Forces the reader to read the whole section to know what it says.

Bad headings:                    Good headings:
  "Performance Analysis"           "Performance is dominated by DB latency"
  "Hiring Considerations"          "We need 2 hires in Q3 to hit roadmap"
  "Security Review"                "Security review flags 3 P1 issues"

Fix: Headings should be full sentences that state the section's conclusion. A reader who skims just the headings should get the argument.

Passive Voice Overload

Hiding actors and responsibility behind the passive voice. Common in corporate and engineering writing, especially around incidents and decisions.

Bad:
  "It was decided that the feature should be rolled back. Errors had
   been observed and mitigations were being considered."

Good:
  "Priya decided to roll back the feature at 14:19 after we observed
   a 40% error rate spike. The on-call team is evaluating three
   mitigations."

Fix: Use active voice. Name the actors. Passive voice is only appropriate when the actor is genuinely unknown or truly irrelevant.

The Garden Path Opening

Sentences that start in one direction and then pivot, forcing the reader to re-parse.

Bad:
  "While it may seem that our approach has been effective, the data,
   when analyzed carefully and with appropriate consideration of
   seasonal variation, suggests that, contrary to our initial
   hypothesis, the opposite is in fact the case."

Good:
  "Our approach is not working. The data shows a 30% regression
   once we correct for seasonality."

Fix: Short sentences. Verbs near subjects. One idea per sentence. If a sentence has more than one "which" or "that" clause, break it up.

Buried Asks

The document contains a clear ask, but it is hidden in paragraph 7 after extensive preamble. The reader who skims never sees it.

Fix: State the ask in the opening and repeat it at the end.
     If the document is more than a page, the ask should also
     appear in a dedicated "What I need from you" section.

Kitchen Sink Documents

A single document trying to be a proposal, a design spec, a project plan, and a status update simultaneously. Serves no audience well.

Fix: One document, one purpose, one audience. If a document has multiple purposes, split it. Link between them for readers who want more.

Jargon-as-Signal

Using dense technical or internal vocabulary to signal expertise rather than to communicate precisely. The reader either cannot follow or does not trust the writer.

Bad:
  "We leveraged a synergistic paradigm to operationalize the
   cross-functional alignment around the north-star metric."

Good:
  "The product and engineering leads agreed on one metric — weekly
   active users — as the top priority for Q4."

Fix: Prefer shorter, plainer words. If a term has a plain-English equivalent, use it. If a term is genuinely technical, define it on first use. Default to the least technical vocabulary that remains precise.

The Orphaned Conclusion

A document that ends without a clear "so what" — no recommendation, no next step, no summary of what the reader should do now.

Fix: Every document needs an explicit closing section: "Recommendation," "Decision needed," "Next steps," or similar. If you cannot write that section, the document was not actually ready.

The Structureless Wall

Long prose with no headings, no formatting, no visual hierarchy. Even a well-written 3-page document becomes unreadable without sectioning.

Fix:

- Headings every ~500 words
- Bullets for enumerable items
- Short paragraphs (3-5 lines)
- Bold or italics for critical phrases (sparingly)
- Whitespace between sections

Visual structure is not decoration; it is how readers navigate.

Premature Conclusion

Stating the conclusion with certainty when the analysis does not support it. Leads to either the reader rejecting the argument or, worse, the writer being bound to a claim they cannot defend.

Fix: Calibrate your language. "Definitely" and "the only option" are strong claims; use them only when you can defend them. When the analysis is preliminary, say so: "Early data suggests...", "Preliminary estimate..."

Citation Theater

Quoting or linking to sources that do not actually support the claim. Particularly common in strategy documents that reference analyst reports or internal research.

Fix: Every link or citation should actually support the claim it is attached to. If the reader clicks through and finds something different, the writer has lost credibility.

Meta-Antipatterns

The Performative Doc

A document written to demonstrate that work was done rather than to communicate useful information. Often long, well-formatted, and empty.

Signal: The writer defends the document's existence rather than its conclusions.

The Consensus Document

A document edited by so many stakeholders that every sharp claim has been sanded down to a vague generality. Safe to publish, useless to read.

Signal: You cannot find any sentence that would be controversial.

Framework Overcompliance

Following a framework (BLUF, Minto, SCQA) so mechanically that the writing sounds like a form letter. The framework is scaffolding, not a cage.

Signal: The document reads like it was generated by a template.

Diagnostic Questions

After writing, before publishing:

1. If the reader reads only the first sentence, do they get the point?
2. If the reader reads only the headings, do they get the argument?
3. Is there a single clear ask or takeaway?
4. Could I cut 20% and lose nothing?
5. Would I read this end-to-end if someone else wrote it?

"No" to any of these is a signal to revise, not to publish.

Further Reading

• William Strunk & E.B. White — The Elements of Style (on eliminating words)
• William Zinsser — On Writing Well (on clarity and simplicity)
• Steven Pinker — The Sense of Style (on why bad writing happens and how to fix it)
• Josh Bernoff — Writing Without Bullshit (direct applied guide to business writing anti-patterns)