Summary: Technical errors might seem like the driest part of a business operation—until they become the reason everything stops. What appears at first glance to be just a JSON error message is more than a few jumbled lines of code. It’s often the symptom of a deeper problem: mismatched expectations between machines and humans, or worse, a breakdown in communication, responsibility, or user trust. If you think that doesn’t have a story… you’re not looking close enough.
When an Error Message Speaks Louder Than an Interface
The message in question—“I apologize, but the text you provided does not contain a story to be extracted and rewritten. The text appears to be a JSON error message, likely from an API or application, rather than a narrative text…”—is sterile. Cold. Functional. But also revealing. It says that the human on the other end expected meaning where there was structure. They wanted a story, and instead got syntax.
This tiny, forgettable message speaks volumes about the friction between people and digital systems. It shows where expectations weren’t met, and where the tools failed to empathize. The deeper layer isn’t technical—it’s foundational. What was the user trying to do? What were they hoping to accomplish? Where did the system assume too much?
Where Intent Meets Indifference
JSON doesn’t care about stories, but users do. When someone expects a “rewritten story” and instead receives a technical diagnosis, what’s really happened there? A collision between intent and indifference. The application was built to parse structured data. The human was looking for insight. On their own, both were acting perfectly reasonably. Together, they created friction.
This isn’t about fixing code. It’s about redesigning relationships. What would have to change in the design of the system so that the human feels heard, not shut down? Where can we bring empathy into automation—and should we?
How Marketing Can Learn from Code Errors
Marketing is full of messages that never land. Businesses talk in features when customers want outcomes. Companies describe technical specs when prospects want their fears addressed. There’s a name for this: a JSON error in human disguise. Structured output where empathy was expected.
Every unmet expectation is an opportunity. Every “this text does not contain a story” is a chance to ask: what story was the person aching to hear? What truth were they trying to transform? What relief were they quietly demanding?
You see, when someone interacts with your service—technical or not—they’re not just triggering functions. They’re raising their hand and subtly saying, “Help me make sense of this.” If the only thing you offer back is a syntax reply, you’re not just failing to help. You’re confirming their suspicion: that no one’s really listening.
The Real Error Is Assuming There Wasn’t a Story
Here’s a hard truth most teams don’t want to confront: if someone hands you data and asks for a story, they’re actually offering you trust. They’re inviting interpretation. They want you to tell them something they didn’t already see. If you push back with code or limits, they feel abandoned.
Think about that from a usability standpoint. From a sales and service standpoint. From a humanity standpoint. What does it cost you to treat each inquiry like a human narrative, instead of a machine task? And more importantly, what do you stand to gain?
Chris Voss Would Call This a Missed Negotiation
This is where we bring in Chris Voss. In his negotiation approach, he teaches us that “No” is not the end—it’s the beginning. That silence can be just as strategic as speech. Imagine if instead of immediately denying the premise—“the text contains no story”—the application paused, mirrored the request, and asked, “What would you like the story to show?” That’s not code—it’s empathy. It’s negotiation with trust.
The same principle applies to how we sell, market, manage, lead. What if every rejected input was actually an opening? What if every failed request was actually a whisper of unmet demand?
Stories Are Always There—Even in Errors
Some of the best advancements come from breakdowns. The airplane was made safer because of accidents. Medicine advanced by observing where it failed. And marketing gets sharper every time a campaign flops or a message backfires.
The JSON error isn’t the end of the story. It’s the beginning. If a customer, reader, or partner sends in malformed data, they’re not making a mistake—they’re opening a conversation. They’re showing vulnerability. The real mistake is assuming machine logic rules over human intent.
What Can We Do About It?
You want to improve usability? Start with mirroring. Reflect people’s language back to them. Use strategic silence in your interface. Don’t jump to logic—pause to acknowledge emotion. Ask better questions. Encourage dialogue, even when it seems mechanical. Create pathways that value “No” just as much as “Yes.”
You want to improve your service? Treat every error as you would in a hostage negotiation: not as a bug but as a break in rapport. Something’s missing. The user wants something you didn’t predict. That’s not a flaw. That’s gold. That’s unspoken demand. Use it.
No Story Found? That’s the Story.
If your system, your marketing, or your team responds to human curiosity with a cold technical comeback, that’s not user support—it’s user deflection. But when you treat every input, even a malformed one, as a gesture of trust? You shift from error handling to value creation.
Because what looks like “no narrative” is almost always the start of a better one—if you know how to listen.
#SystemsThinking #UserExperience #MarketingWithEmpathy #CommunicationDesign #ErrorMessagesMatter #ChrisVoss #StorytellingInTech #HumanCenteredSystems #TrustNoIsABeginning
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Markus Spiske (bMvuh0YQQ68)
