Summary: The query “The provided text does not contain a story to extract and rewrite…” is clear, accurate, and functional. It’s not storytelling material, nor is it designed to be. It’s a system response formatted in JSON, alerting a user that their account lacks sufficient balance to run a query. This post will explain why trying to turn such technical feedback into a narrative is misguided and how recognizing format and function in data communication helps us focus effort where it belongs.
Data is not a story—it’s a signal
The text in question is a JSON response. JSON stands for JavaScript Object Notation, a format used for structuring data so that machines—and developers—can communicate. This isn’t writing crafted for human emotion or engagement. It’s a system message, birthed from an unmet condition: the account doesn’t have enough credits to proceed with a request. Period.
So, when someone tries to “extract and rewrite” such a message as if it were a parable buried in data—what’s that really about? It shows a confusion between audience and utility. Technical messages are function-first. Trying to abstract narratives from them is like trying to write a novel out of a toaster’s ‘check wiring’ error code. You can force it, but should you?
Function over fiction: Messaging does a job
System responses like this one serve a real and specific purpose—they notify, they guide, and they alert. By stating the issue directly—“insufficient account balance”—the system removes confusion. This isn’t a missed opportunity for creativity. It’s a success of precision.
Think of it this way: When your car’s fuel light comes on, do you expect it to tell you a story about petroleum, geology, and road trips? No—you want to know one thing: you’re running low, and you need to refuel. The same logic applies to API and SaaS communications. The goal is clarity, not charm.
Why rewriting adds no value
Rewriting content is only valuable when it changes the user’s understanding, accessibility, or experience. Trying to paraphrase a sentence that already says exactly what it should—succinctly and intelligibly—defeats the point. It introduces risk of misinterpretation without yielding any gain.
So let’s ask the smarter question. If this message is already clear, who are we rewriting it for? Is the user confused? Are they non-technical? If so, maybe what’s needed is not a rewrite, but a companion explanation. One that doesn’t alter the message itself but adds interpretation or recommended action steps.
Translating for action, not embellishment
Instead of rewording, the better move is layering. Keep the original intact for precision, then add a clear follow-up for usability. Think:
- Original: “Error: Insufficient account balance to run query.”
- Follow-Up: “You’ll need to deposit credits or upgrade your plan to proceed with this query. Visit your billing settings to continue.”
That’s guidance, not fluff. It respects the format while supporting the user. It’s like putting a sign beneath the red light saying “nearest gas station 3 km ahead.” Not rewriting the light to say “Your vehicle may soon end its capability to continue forward progress.”
Let technical things be technical
This isn’t about a lack of creativity—it’s about respecting the frame. Trying to force a narrative where none belongs is like painting over a warning sign. Just because you can rephrase doesn’t mean you should. And just because something is text doesn’t mean it’s meant for storytelling.
This highlights one of the bigger issues we face in product development and UX design. When the purpose of every piece of data is misunderstood, products grow bloated with “voice” instead of value. The best systems respect separation of concerns. Messaging alerts users, docs explain function, guides help users succeed, and marketing makes people care. Let each part of the symphony do its job.
Simplicity is the achievement, not the starting point
The JSON message works because it distills the problem to a single, useful point. Here’s what went wrong. Here’s why. If that sentence works—don’t complicate it. Just like how the best marketing isn’t slick—it’s direct. That’s why Chris Voss warns against noise in negotiation. That’s why Blair Warren says people believe what aligns with their pre-existing understanding. Clarity always outweighs cleverness when stakes are high, which they always are in technical execution.
Let’s flip the real question back at you
Are you trying to rewrite this message because you think your reader doesn’t get it? Or because someone told you “every error should tell a story”? What’s the outcome you want? And how much does your rewrite bring that outcome closer?
If it’s understanding you want—fine. Develop companion communications. If emotion is your target—then step outside error handling and look at overall UX. But if it’s just rewriting for the sake of filling space, stop. Move on to parts of your system that actually shape user success.
Hard truth: Most writing assignments don’t need to exist. Especially when the original already says what it needs to, and says it well. JSON messages are blueprints, not bedtime stories. Learn the difference. Build like a builder, not a poet—unless, of course, you’re paid to be one.
#TechWriting #ProductCommunication #UXDesign #ClearMessaging #WritingTips #NoFluff
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Stephen Dawson (qwtCeJ5cLYs)
