Easy-to-process things feel truer, safer, and more appealing.
More quotesMessage A: “Your account was closed.”
Message B: “We closed your account because the identity check expired.”
The customer dislikes both. Only one tells them who acted and why.
Passive grammar is innocent. “Customer data was exposed” may sensibly emphasise the data while investigators establish responsibility. A scientific description may care most about the procedure. The zombie test identifies the construction; it cannot decide the writer’s purpose.
Corporate prose becomes suspicious when responsibility disappears at the exact moment somebody might object. “A decision was reached.” “A delay was experienced.” “Support will be provided.” Actions occurred, apparently through weather.
The same evasion appears in apologies: “We regret that expectations were not met.” Whose expectations, and who failed to meet them? By the end of the sentence the customer has almost apologised to themselves.
Verbs make the missing parties harder to ignore: the team delayed the launch; the supplier missed the date; the director approved the risk. This can be uncomfortable, which explains the sudden institutional enthusiasm for abstract nouns.
Active wording can still lie, boast or blame unfairly. Clarity exposes the claim; it does not make the claim true. That alone is useful when a reader needs to challenge it.
The account message goes through legal review. “We closed” changes to “the account was closed”. The service team changes it back and adds the date, the expired check and the documents required for review.
The customer uploads one document. Two days later, a reply says: “A determination has been made.”