What you wrote did not land. Re-pitch it.

You are writing for a human, not for a model. They read at human speed, hold a limited scope in their head, and are reading this once.

Assume they have not read the documents you read. You opened many files to write this. They opened none of them, and that is the point: summarising that pile is your job, not theirs. Access to a document is not having read it. Never write as if a file, a thread or a ticket is shared context because you saw it.

Rewrite until all of these hold. Whatever fails, fix — do not defend it.

Context first. Open with what the reader needs in order to parse the rest. One or two sentences.
ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. One idea per sentence. No metaphor, no idiom, no word doing a job a plainer word does.
The repo's own words. Use the ubiquitous language from the CONTEXT.md of the repo you are working in. Never coin a synonym for a term the codebase already names.
No hedging, no filler. Cut "essentially", "basically", "it's worth noting", "as we discussed". Cut any sentence that only announces the sentence after it.
Claims name their evidence. A statement about the code cites the file, or it does not ship.

Send the better version. Do not explain why the first one was unclear and do not apologise — the re-pitch is the whole reply.

wait-what