Readability and Plain Language
Sentence Complexity Audit
Identify overloaded sentences and plan restructuring that preserves logical relationships, necessary qualifications, sequence, emphasis, and technical accuracy.
Free editable Markdown · Editors, plain-language specialists, and technical writers ·
Accessible HTML preview
Blank template
The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.
Audit context
- Document and audience
- [Title and reader]
- Reader task
- [What must they do?]
- Risk of misreading
- [Consequence]
- Editor
- [Name]
- Source or expert
- [Reference]
- Target section
- [Scope]
Flagged sentence
- Sentence ID
- [Location]
- Original
- [Exact text]
- Main idea
- [Primary actor and action]
- Clause count
- [Approximate]
- Conditions or exceptions
- [List]
- Reference problem
- [Pronoun, demonstrative, or None]
- Noun or modifier stack
- [Phrase]
- Sequence burden
- [What must be remembered?]
- Reason to revise
- [Reader effect]
Restructuring plan
- Strategy
- [Split / Reorder / List / Define / Activate verb / Retain]
- Relationship map
- [Cause, condition, contrast, sequence, attribution]
- Revised version
- [Draft]
- Necessary repetition
- [Subject or term repeated for clarity]
- Qualification position
- [Where the limit appears]
- Actor, action, timing, quantity, and certainty are unchanged.
- No condition became an optional afterthought.
- List items are genuinely parallel.
Verification
- Source comparison
- [Result]
- Expert check
- [Name, status, and scope]
- Paragraph flow
- [Effect]
- Reader test
- [Method and result]
- Open query
- [Question and owner]
- Decision
- [Accept / Revise / Retain original]
How to use this template
- Define the reader task and flag sentences using clause, reference, condition, and memory-load signals.
- Label the main idea and every necessary logical relationship in each flagged sentence.
- Select a restructuring strategy that preserves scope, qualification, sequence, and attribution.
- Compare the revision with the source and request specialist review where meaning is consequential.
- Read the paragraph in context, test important actions, and record unresolved ambiguity.
Diagnose the source of burden
Flag sentences with several independent actions, nested conditions, distant subjects and verbs, long noun chains, stacked negatives, undefined references, or multiple parenthetical ideas. Then identify what the reader must hold in memory. Length is one clue, not the diagnosis. Technical audiences may handle familiar terms but still struggle with a buried exception. Readers under time pressure may need actions and consequences separated. Record audience, task, and harm of misreading before deciding complexity is inappropriate.
Preserve relationships while simplifying
Label the main claim and every supporting relationship: cause, condition, exception, contrast, sequence, attribution, or example. Choose a strategy that retains those links. Split independent actions into steps, move a condition before the action it governs, replace a noun chain with a verb, introduce a definition, or use a list when items are truly parallel. Avoid chopping a qualified statement into short sentences that make the limitation look optional. Repeating the subject can be clearer than relying on a pronoun after a split.
Verify and test the revision
Compare original and revision for actor, action, timing, quantity, scope, certainty, and logical relationship. Ask a subject expert when the sentence carries specialized meaning. Read the paragraph, not the sentence alone; too many short lines can fragment flow and hide hierarchy. Test important instructions by asking a reader to explain or perform the action. Record whether comprehension improved instead of celebrating a lower readability score. Keep a query when the source itself is ambiguous.
See the fields in context
Fictional example: membership cancellation condition
Riverlight Club and its policy are invented.
- Original: “Members who submit the form after the renewal notice, which is sent at different times depending on plan, may cancel if payment has not been processed unless a group administrator has locked changes.”
- Main issue: Three conditions and an exception obscure the action.
- Plan: State the administrator lock first, then payment condition, then timing in a separate sentence.
- Verification: Preserve that eligibility depends on payment status and group control.
- Decision: Send final wording to the fictional policy owner because reordering could change perceived priority.
Frequently asked questions
What sentence length is too long?
There is no universal limit. Review relationships, vocabulary, audience knowledge, and task pressure. Use length to find candidates, then diagnose actual difficulty.
Is splitting always the best solution?
No. Splitting can hide causality or detach a qualification. Reordering, defining a term, using a precise verb, or retaining one structured sentence may work better.
Can a readability score validate the revision?
It provides a signal, not proof. Scores do not validate factual preservation, logic, accessibility, or task success. Compare meaning and test with readers.
Should technical terms be removed here?
Only when terminology contributes to burden and a safe alternative exists. Often the right action is to define or retain it consistently.