Shorten the Report Without Changing the Decision
An executive summary should let a busy reader understand the main finding, its basis, the consequential limits and the action proposed. It should not turn a careful report into an unqualified success claim. A limitation is material when removing it could change what the reader believes or decides.
This tutorial uses the fictional report packet from Edit a Multi-Author Report. The example is original practice material, not evidence about a real program.
Establish the Claims You May Summarize
The reconciled July-September report contains three controlled source records:
- R3, activity register: Six sessions, 120 attendances and 80 unique participants. Repeats across sessions were checked for the unique-person count.
- C3, finance schedule: 9,000 USD assigned to July-September under the stated allocation basis. That gives 112.50 USD per unique participant or 75 USD per attendance.
- T1, post-session assessment: 46 of 60 assessed participants met the stated criterion. Twenty of the 80 participants were not assessed. There is no supplied comparable baseline or causal analysis.
The report recommends examining who was not assessed and why before deciding whether a future assessment approach needs adjustment. It does not recommend expanding the training on demonstrated impact grounds. No decision to expand has been approved in this exercise.
Compare Two Complete Summaries
Summary A: The training improved skills for 80 participants at a low cost of 75 USD each. Most learners passed, confirming that the program works. We recommend immediate expansion.
Summary B: Six July-September sessions recorded 120 attendances by 80 unique participants. Period costs were 9,000 USD, equivalent to 112.50 USD per unique participant or 75 USD per attendance. Of 60 participants assessed after the sessions, 46 met the criterion; 20 participants were not assessed, and no comparable baseline was supplied. These records do not establish improvement or impact. Before changing the assessment approach, the team should check who was not assessed and why. Expansion is not decided by this report.
Summary A is shorter, but it changes the evidence. Its 75 USD figure uses attendances while calling them participants. Low cost adds an unexplained judgment with no comparator. Improved and works require evidence beyond the supplied post-session result. Immediate expansion adds a recommendation absent from the report.
Summary B preserves the units, period, coverage and decision limit. It does not list every operational detail. The audience can still distinguish what happened, what was assessed and what remains unknown.
Trace Each Sentence Back to the Body
| Summary Claim | Report Support | Limit to Keep |
|---|---|---|
| Six sessions, 120 attendances, 80 unique people | R3 and activity section | Attendance and unique-person units differ |
| 9,000 USD and the two unit costs | C3 and costing section | July-September period and defined cost basis; no value-for-money ranking |
| 46 of 60 met the criterion | T1 and assessment section | Only those assessed; not all participants or demonstrated change |
| Check missing assessment coverage | Report's recommendation section | Investigation proposed, not an approved expansion or assumed explanation |
If a sentence has no support in the body, either remove it or return the substantive issue to the author. Do not add new analysis only in the summary, where readers cannot inspect how it was reached.
Decide What to Leave Out
The exact interview schedule, file-transfer steps and detailed session dates can remain in the body or appendix if they do not affect the conclusion. Assessment coverage cannot: excluding 20 participants may alter the interpretation. A missing baseline cannot: it separates achievement of a criterion from improvement over time.
For an even shorter briefing, preserve that distinction: Six sessions reached 80 unique participants. Post-session results cover 60 of them and do not establish improvement; examine the missing assessment coverage before changing the approach. Omit costs entirely if the space cannot accommodate the correct unit and basis. This is safer than substituting an easier but different denominator.
Check the Last Edit in Context
Ask the technical and finance owners to check the summary against the same controlled report version. Revisit it after any body correction. Retain conditions attached to proposals, uncertainty around future dates and the status of decisions. A clear recommendation can coexist with uncertainty: specify what should happen next to resolve the uncertainty, without claiming it has already been resolved.
Use the style-versus-meaning examples when a shortening suggestion changes a population, cause or obligation.
Source and Scope
CLEAR Global's one-page plain-language guide, Tips for Using Plain Language, supports putting important information first and arranging it clearly. The paired summaries, traceability check and report figures here are original OpenAid teaching material. Readability alone does not verify a technical conclusion, validate costs or justify a program decision.