Summary: When developers, marketers, or stakeholders ask for a “story” behind a snippet of text like a JSON error message, they may be looking for something that simply isn’t there. Not every output from a system has a story tucked inside it. Sometimes, what you’re seeing is not some cryptic message waiting to be decoded—it’s already direct, concise, and self-contained. The challenge, then, isn’t to turn it into more than it is, but to respect the boundary between technical clarity and narrative invention.
Error Messages Are Not Narratives. Stop Treating Them Like They Should Be.
Let’s start with the specific line in question: “This is not a raw website text that contains a story. The given text appears to be a JSON response indicating an error due to insufficient account balance. There is no story to extract or rewrite. The provided text is already clear and self-explanatory.”
Now read that again. Anything vague in there? Hidden meaning? Nuance to explore? You’re staring at an automated system response—not a scene from a Kafka novel.
The JSON output is direct: You tried to perform an action, but your account doesn’t have enough credit. That’s it. There isn’t some misaligned motivation or character flaw embedded in the response waiting to be understood. No subplot. No second act. Just a wall you hit for a clear reason: lack of funds.
This misunderstanding—that every piece of text in a system must be part of some overarching narrative—is not just intellectually misleading, it’s operationally dangerous. It wastes time, invites flawed assumptions, and confuses stakeholders who actually need clarity, not creative writing.
Stop Filling in Stories That Don’t Exist
Technical outputs are meant to communicate status, not emotion. When marketers or copywriters (and I say this as someone who understands both code and communication) step in looking for prose where there should be precision, we’ve lost track of roles.
Ask yourself: what’s the function of this output?
If the function is diagnostics, then inserting fluff is sabotage. If it’s delivering hard information about an operational failure, adding emotional cues only muddies decision-making. We end up asking the wrong questions or pursuing irrelevant fixes.
Here’s what it’s really saying with no dramatics: the call failed, and we didn’t process it because the person calling didn’t have the money to pay for it. That’s not rudely utilitarian. That’s responsibly factual.
Why This Kind of Literalism Matters
The real story isn’t in the message—it’s in the assumptions made by the reader. And this is where we need to talk about marketing’s responsibility to respect the technical intent of digital systems. When systems speak, our job isn’t to romanticize the message but to ask: What decision does this enable?
The JSON error you saw enables a developer to tell their user: “You didn’t have enough credit.” It enables customer support to ask: “Would you like to top up your account now?” It enables finance to track failed transactions and course-correct.
But if someone asks you to ‘tell the story behind this message’ without understanding that computer systems communicate differently than people, you’re being pulled into the wrong conversation.
Now let’s apply some Chris Voss-style clarity here: What makes you think there’s a story behind this? How can we draw attention to what it actually means instead of inventing something entertaining but functionally useless?
Respecting the Clarity of Computers
Systems don’t waffle. They don’t sugarcoat. They don’t bury the lede. When you get a message from a piece of software, it tells you what went wrong and usually, what’s required to fix it. The reason this message seems “dry” isn’t because it lacks creativity—it’s because creativity is a liability in error handling.
This is what Robert Cialdini would call a test of authority and consistency. If you position yourself as someone who understands how systems work, then your communication must reflect that you’re not here to inflate what doesn’t need inflating. You’re here to bridge clarity—not blur it.
If we constantly rewrite engineering outputs to insert charm, we risk breaking the trust loop between those who design systems and those who depend on them. The technical audience, the developers and admins, want precision and predictability more than sparkle.
The Right Way to Frame This for Stakeholders
If your boss or client drops this message on your desk and says, “Make a story out of this,” your response should be respectful but firm. Try this:
“It sounds like you’re expecting customer-friendly messaging. This message is meant for diagnostics, not front-end UX. Would it help if I translated this into customer-facing language instead of building a fictional story around it?”
You’re creating a negotiation frame here. You’re not saying no—you’re saying, “How do we get what we both want without distorting the source?” That’s mirroring their request (Chris Voss), while also applying commitment to honest communication (Cialdini), and respecting the emotional concern that sparked the request (Blair Warren).
This is how we protect technical accuracy while remaining tactful and useful. It’s also a deeper form of service—one that goes beyond making things ‘pretty’ and actually makes them functional.
Conclusion: Sometimes a Message is Just a Message
If you’ve ever read a system message and thought, “This could really use a story,” you may be misapplying language from one domain into another. That doesn’t make you wrong—it just means it’s time to reframe.
Ask: who is this message written for? What task does it help them complete? Would rewriting this hurt comprehension or help it?
The best communication doesn’t embellish unnecessarily. It eliminates doubt. This technical message already does that. Let’s not overthink it just to have something clever to show.
And if you’re in the role of translating backend logic for a non-technical audience, remember: you’re a steward of clarity—not a fiction writer.
#TechnicalWriting #ClearCommunication #JSONErrors #MarketingHonesty #UXDesign #DigitalClarity #StakeholderAlignment #ErrorHandling
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and SHTTEFAN (fFtHVivsPuc)
