0
I’m editing a technical article for readers who understand the basics but don’t work with the product every day. One subject-matter expert wants more qualifications and edge cases. Another says those additions bury the point and make the article harder to follow.
Both sets of comments seem reasonable. The problem is that accepting one often means rejecting the other.
For writers managing subject-matter expert reviews, how do you decide which feedback belongs in the main explanation, which needs a short caveat, and which can be left out?
- Do you agree on the reader’s knowledge level before the first draft?
- Who makes the final call when the disagreement concerns emphasis rather than factual accuracy?
- How do you document that decision without turning every sentence into a meeting?
I’d especially like to hear about an editorial review process that works when neither reviewer reports to the writer.
