Summary: A system message that says, “Unfortunately, the text you provided does not contain a story that can be extracted and rewritten…” may seem trivial at first glance. But if you’re serious about building software, managing digital services, or simply running your day-to-day operations through APIs, that line is a warning flare. It points to a much bigger issue: not just low account balance, but broken feedback loops, unclear expectations, and poor error design that turn end users into confusion magnets. This post breaks that line apart—technical as it may be—and explains what it says about your systems, your messaging, your business logic, and your reputation.
Understanding What the Message Actually Says
Let’s dissect it. The message reads: “Unfortunately, the text you provided does not contain a story that can be extracted and rewritten. The text appears to be an error message from an API or a software application, indicating that the account balance is insufficient to run the requested query and that the user needs to recharge their account. This is not a narrative story that can be rewritten. The text simply conveys an error message and does not contain any story elements that can be extracted and rewritten.”
What we have here isn’t just technical noise—it’s a confused system talking to a confused user. The software expected something creative or informational. The user gave it structured logic. The result? A cold and clumsy shrug from the system. But what’s worse: instead of helping, it blames the user for the mismatch.
Behind the Curtain: Why This Happens
There are at least two systems here: the front-end user’s query input and a back-end process with execution logic tied to payment or credits. One of them triggered an error, and the other didn’t catch it. The failure here isn’t just lack of funds—it’s that the architecture allowed an invalid request to slip through the cracks long enough to be interpreted as a content problem rather than an execution failure.
That’s not a “user problem.” That’s a design flaw. Who’s responsible for making that obvious? Not the user.
The Real Costs of Error Messages Like This
When systems obscure real errors with vague output, it creates chaos. The cost isn’t just one failed transaction. It’s wasted engineering cycles, misdirected customer support, and—worst of all—a damaged reputation. People begin to think your product is flaky or doesn’t work, when the real problem was a badly handled precondition. Once or twice, that’s tolerable. At scale? It’s unacceptable. That’s how churn builds. And churn always outpaces growth.
Have you described your own system this way when explaining it to engineers or stakeholders? “Well, it usually fails when…” That’s not a business decision. That’s an abdication.
Plain Language, Smart Design
A better way to handle this would involve layered logic and empathy—yes, empathy—in system messaging. Before your app tells someone their text “does not contain a story,” it should ask: Why is the text being submitted in the first place? What are they trying to do? What preconditions aren’t being met—balance, format, service availability?
Then it should speak clearly. Not a condescending diagnosis, but a tight call to action. Something like:
- “We couldn’t process your query because your account balance is too low to run this request. Please recharge your account and try again.”
That’s not innovation—it’s basic respect.
Who Owns the Problem?
The temptation will always be to offload the blame—user error, browser incompatibility, invalid JSON. But real customer loyalty comes from owning the failure. When users say, “I didn’t know I was out of credits,” that’s not ignorance. That’s a sign your system didn’t flag it early enough or clearly enough. And if your messaging isn’t explicitly coded to prevent that moment of surprise, then whose logic is it serving?
Every unclear error message is a negotiation moment lost. If your application spoke like Chris Voss, it would mirror back what went wrong, show it understood your intent, and hand you a next step—gracefully.
Better Messaging: A Tactical Rewrite
At the very least, that original message could’ve been refactored into something that follows the Voss philosophy:
- “It seems you’re trying to submit a request our system couldn’t process.”
- “The message you provided looks like an account error, not a story or content prompt.”
- “Is it possible your account balance isn’t enough to run the query?”
Each line keeps the power of ‘No’ in the user’s hands while nudging them toward resolution. They’re not being corrected—they’re being respected.
Reputation is a Product Feature
Every time your software speaks, it teaches users what it thinks of them. If your messaging is clear, helpful, and real, you build trust. If your system gaslights or misleads people when they trip over edge cases, you lose that trust faster than you can debug a billing threshold.
If you’re serious about building user-centered products, then system failure states must be designed with the same conviction as your core functionalities. Because those interactions aren’t rare—they’re what defines how people talk about your product long after they stop using it.
Final Thought: Fix the System, Not the User
Users don’t need to be taught how your interface works. You need to learn how they think. The message that started this conversation was a system’s awkward way of saying, “I didn’t get what I wanted.” But users don’t care what your backend wants—they care about outcomes. They want clarity, control, and acknowledgement. Give them that, and you stop losing customers to preventable error handling. Fail that, and nothing else matters.
#UXDesign #APIErrors #ErrorHandling #CustomerSupport #SoftwareMessaging #DeveloperExperience #HumanCenteredDesign #ProductStrategy #OwnTheProblem #IEEOMarketing
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Allison Saeng (Vggz9HRvvLM)
