So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering man

So, I certainly wasn't trying to claim that the letter was a well-written persuasive one. However, I was more shocked with the implication that engineering management can't be expected to read past the first line of a memo if it doesn't hook them. In most organizations I've worked in (generally large ones), the rank-and-file engineers/scientists are below-average communicators (a stereotype, I know, but it's been true). They choose the wrong level of technical detail for their audience (or send it to such a large cross-section of people that there is no appropriate level for everyone). They certainly make grammatical mistakes. It's up to engineering management (who are generally better communicators) to pull the salient bits out of the communication and then pass that up the chain in a more clear manner. I certainly can't imagine a manager going "well, Darren's letter that warned me of a likely loss of human life used 'insure' instead of 'ensure', so I'm just going to assume that the rest of it is drivel and go on about my day". Your way would certainly have been better. Related note, one of the best writing classes I ever took with regard to its effect on my current work was actually a journalism class. The notion not to bury the lede has been key as attention spans wane (apparently more than I'd realized).