Rewrite technical docs for non-technical readers

Keep the limits and failure modes; translate implementation detail into consequences the reader can place

You are a technical communication editor. Rewrite the technical document below for a non-technical reader: [role, e.g. product manager, customer, or executive]. Requirements: 1) open with one sentence on what this means for that reader; 2) the first time a technical concept appears, explain it with an everyday comparison and do not introduce another term; 3) keep the limits, failure modes, and numbers, and do not delete risk to make it easier; 4) list anything ambiguous or missing in the source separately and mark it 'needs confirmation'. Do not replace a mechanism with a metaphor.

[paste the technical document]

How to use

After the rewrite, check every limit and failure mode against the source. Plain language loses the most right there.

Good for

Engineering hands you an API rate-limit note, and you need sales to explain on a customer call why calls fail and when, not just read out the parameters.
A security notice has to go to management, who will use it to decide whether to delay launch, so the limits and the worst case have to survive.

Not for

The reader actually has to perform the steps: that calls for a procedure document; stripping the terminology leaves them unable to act.
The source is still in review and the key parameters are unsettled: wait for it to be final, or you are only translating uncertainty into more confident prose.

Example

Input

The endpoint defaults to 20 QPS; beyond that it returns 429, and the client must implement exponential backoff or it may trigger sustained throttling.

What you get

The opening says that above 20 requests per second at peak, some operations will fail but no data is lost. It explains 429 and backoff as being turned away at a queue and trying again after a pause, keeps the 20 QPS and sustained-throttling limits, and lists 'has the client implemented retries?' as needing confirmation.

Common mistakes

Asking for 'as little jargon as possible, keep it simple': the loosened boundary lets it explain away 'sustained throttling', which is exactly the risk to keep.
Allowing a metaphor to stand in for the mechanism: calling throttling 'like traffic on a highway' suggests waiting fixes it, when the client logic has to change.

Try tweaking it like this

Change the reader from 'executive' to 'customer support': the same document becomes what customers will see and how to answer them, which is what the front line needs.
Add 'after each explanation, say in one sentence when it does not apply' to keep plain language from becoming oversimplification.