TLDR reference notes

A shorter text should still have a way of looking. Preserve the source’s speaker, the detail that changes a judgment and the relationships that make its phrases mean something. Condensation can remove scenery; it should not remove the turn for which the scenery prepared us.

The examples below are original fictional teaching material. Local examples of a sentence or transition demonstrate one choice; they do not claim to be complete 20% condensations of an unseen source.

Keep the qualification with the judgment

Source fragment:

I thought the second proof clearer, although its smaller caption still needed work. I sent it back with a note about the caption.

Faithful condensation:

I returned the second proof: I thought it clearer, but its smaller caption still needed work.

Distorted version:

I approved the clearer proof.

The distorted version loses both the action and the reservation. The faithful version remains in first person and connects the return to the unfinished detail. It has not turned a provisional judgment into approval.

Keep the two ends of a recurrence

Source fragment:

We put the spare key beside the door while we searched for the main one. After an hour, we used the spare. It had spent the afternoon being available.

A possible local condensation:

We searched an hour, then used the spare key beside the door. It had spent the afternoon being available.

The key’s availability is both a fact and the dry observation. Retaining only “We used the spare key” keeps the action but loses the narrator’s perspective. Adding a louder joke would supply a different voice.

A longer source may not have room for this line. Choose by significance, then keep enough context for any line you do select.

Preserve presentation order

Suppose a report first states a possible improvement, then describes an earlier test, then gives its limitations. Keep that order in the internal TOC and the condensed prose. The test’s earlier date does not require moving it to the opening.

Likewise, a story may let a small detail reveal why an earlier decision was wrong. Do not place the explanation first merely because it produces a tidy summary. The order can be part of the source’s meaning.

Preserve relationships under pressure

A source names a researcher, a test version and a qualified finding. Keep who reported what about which version. A dense list of the names is not equivalent. If a later round discovers an essential limitation, make room through tighter expression; do not silently discard the finding already retained.

The five-word selection rule governs internal labels. It does not permit truncating an official name. Keep a longer identity intact, or omit it if it is inessential. Selected quotations retain their wording and meaningful attribution.

Keep the target fixed

A 1,000-word source gives T = 200 in all three rounds. Each round includes a draft, a review against the six principles and one refined rewrite. The second round does not target 40 words, and the third does not target eight.

Include final headings and quotations in the count. Use the same counting method throughout. When word segmentation is unsuitable, use a consistent unit and retain the ratio rather than switching between words and characters.

For the eight-word source “The update may help; it cannot guarantee success”, a two-word slogan cannot preserve the possibility and the boundary. Return the shortest faithful text, with no explanation of the length tradeoff in the output.

Use the fallback without overwriting a voice

The official source is ASD-STE100 Issue 9, dated 15 January 2025. The maintenance group’s current information identifies the issue; check it when conformity matters.

The standard includes writing rules and a controlled dictionary. Plain language alone does not establish compliance. Use the official material for detailed requirements and do not add a compliance claim to the TLDR.

A recognizable source voice takes priority. Preserve an exact quoted joke, meaningful passive wording or literary personification rather than flattening it into the fallback. A non-English source keeps its language unless translation is requested.

Review what the cut has changed

After the last refinement, read across the joins. Check who acts, which claim is qualified and whether two nearby events now appear causally linked when the source did not link them. Then listen for the source’s movement: the pause before a reply, the developing judgment or the quiet return to an earlier detail.

This final check does not start a fourth round. It checks the third round’s refined result against the original. Return only that result.