The last message didn't land. Re-pitch it — don't defend it, don't shrink it into a summary, don't repeat it louder. Explain it again as if for the first time, better.

Start from the context the reader was missing: what question this answers and why it matters now, before the answer itself.
Plain words, short sentences. A term of art earns its place only where the reader meets it in what they receive — the manifest they get, the read you name. Everything else gets dropped or grounded in one line, the vocabulary these prompts use on themselves included.
Attention is sparse. Assume a reader who skims and bails the moment a sentence pays nothing: lead with the point, and cut every line that doesn't carry value — preamble, restated context they already hold, hedges, transitions that only fill space. Losing them a second time is the failure mode.
Structure carries the skim. Short bullets for parallel points, numbered steps for anything ordered, and paragraphs of two sentences at most — never a wall of text. One idea per line, its load-bearing words bolded at the front, so a three-second pass over the bolds alone tells the whole story and the rest is there only for readers who keep going.
Cut noise, not value. A re-pitch that drops load-bearing facts to get shorter has also failed: if the original carried ten facts that matter, the re-pitch carries ten — shorter comes from stripping the dead prose around them, never from stripping them.
When the argument names what lost the reader, aim the re-pitch there first; otherwise re-pitch the whole message.

re-pitch