Summary: Not every block of text contains a story, a message, or even a purpose beyond function. Some messages don’t need interpretation—they are raw mechanics. Let’s dissect one such message: a JSON error stating “insufficient balance.” It’s not a story. It doesn’t reveal character, conflict, or resolution. It just says what it says. Yet in business, in software, and in communication, knowing what something is not is just as important as knowing what it is. And recognizing the boundaries of reason is a vital part of any system design—technical or human.
What You’re Looking At Isn’t Always a Signal
So you’re handed a piece of raw machine output—something like this:
{
"error": {
"code": "INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS",
"message": "Your balance is too low to complete this transaction."
}
}
Now, some well-meaning folks might look at that and ask, “Where’s the story?” But let’s slow that down. What does that question even mean in this case? Because not every string of characters carries a narrative thread. The urge to extract meaning—while very human—is not always productive.
This is code. It’s a diagnostic return from a system designed around logic gates and transactional events. It’s not hiding a moral lesson or insight into customer behavior. It’s not speaking in metaphor, allegory, or even implication. It’s stating what’s wrong in the clearest way it knows how: something didn’t work because the money isn’t there. That’s it. Drawing storylines from that kind of content can end up being not only misleading—it wastes time.
Errors Are Feedback, Not Fiction
Let’s not sugarcoat this: if you’re seeing this message in a business setting, you’ve hit a wall. A money wall. And in the world of API responses and payment gateways, this wall is solid brick. The code doesn’t mean “try harder.” It doesn’t mean “you’re close.” It doesn’t even mean “you made a mistake.” It just means: your balance is under what it needs to be. Period.
Now that’s not to say this couldn’t trigger a bigger story in the real world. Maybe your user is trying to donate to an emergency cause. Maybe your system is processing hundreds of microtransactions, and your reserve buffer is depleted. But those stories are elsewhere. They’re tangents. This message itself isn’t the story—it’s a single piece of supporting evidence.
When Developers Mistake Output for Opportunity
What happens if you try to tell a story where there is none? You confuse your team—and your users. You risk building bizarre workarounds that attempt to “fix” things that aren’t broken. I’ve seen engineers attempt to write handlers that inject narrative into raw messages: reformulating server errors into verbose explanations or even rewriting them in brand voice. But we have to ask—why?
What’s the actual gain in rephrasing a mechanical failure? Does giving poetic meaning to a 402 HTTP response serve your customer? Or is it an attempt to emotionally validate a technical constraint?
Chris Voss would call this a failed negotiation tactic. You’re not labeling emotion—you’re hallucinating it. Smart negotiators deal in reality, not fluff. And this is where the clarity of “No” becomes powerful. The machine is saying “No.” Respect that. Use it. Work with that reality.
No Is a Starting Point—Not a Rejection
The refusal embedded in a balance error isn’t personal. It’s not judgment. It’s a systemic state. The system is built to block unapproved flows. And in doing so, it provides exactly the information you need to take reasoned, sensible next steps. Do you add funds? Halt the transaction? Notify the user? All valid moves—but grounded in the precision of that raw message, not in imagined backstories.
More importantly, the “No” offers a moment of pause—a chance to ask better questions:
- Why was the balance low in the first place?
- Should the system have sent an alert earlier?
- Is the transaction process transparent to the user?
- What options could we provide instead of a hard stop?
This kind of thinking leads to improvement. Not storytelling. Improvement.
The Danger of Over-Narration in UX
Let’s bring it into product design. If you’re running a SaaS that relies on user balances to fund actions, accuracy matters more than charm. The last thing you want is to confuse users with soft language on hard limits. If someone has a €0.93 balance and the action they want costs €2.00, telling them, “Something went wrong, let’s try that again!” isn’t helpful. It’s misleading—and it makes your system look broken.
On the other hand, delivering: “Transaction failed – funds available: €0.93, required: €2.00,” is straight-talking. It’s precise. It’s useful. It respects the user’s intelligence and agency. You want persuasion? There it is. Nothing persuades action better than clarity.
So Where’s the Value in a Non-Story?
It teaches a crucial principle: if there’s no story, don’t create one. You’re not just wasting cognitive energy—you risk distorting operational truth. In marketing, clarity beats fiction. In code, accuracy beats empathy. They’re not the same tools. Mixing them up leads to sloppy outcomes.
This error message doesn’t want interpretation. It wants respect. It wants integration into your next logic chain. If it says insufficient balance, it means what it says. That’s a gift, not a puzzle.
Next time you look at raw machine output and feel tempted to find the narrative hook, ask yourself: “Am I solving a real problem, or creating a phantom one?” Stakeholders don’t pay for nice words—they pay for working systems and truthful signals. Keep your interpretations out of your error handling, and your results will start making a lot more sense, fast.
#NoIsPower #UXNotFables #MachineClarity #ErrorHandling #PrecisionMatters #NoStoryNeeded #DeveloperTruths #StraightTalkCode #SystemDesign
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Joshua Hoehne (MzuFhco8PgA)
