> The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (

> The author undermines their thesis by leaving the audience hanging. Kind of. I thought the original advice from the author's boss at the top of the article (order of "punchline" with no adjectives, then current status, then next steps, then explanation) is great advice. The problem with the author's telling of his son's story is he basically completely left out step 4, the explanation. I think the value in the original advice is not that any of the steps is more important than the other, but doing them in that order ensures you don't try to sugarcoat or obfuscate the actual thing that happened: it forces the team to clearly acknowledge the facts without bias. But yeah, just telling the story without explanation is missing a big part of the detail to actually understand what happened.