Rewriting one piece of copy for a different audience

You have a paragraph that works, written for one audience, and now you need a version for a different one: the executive summary becomes a Slack post for the team that has to actually do the work, or the customer-facing announcement becomes a version for the partner who resells it. The lazy move is asking for “the same thing but for [new audience],” and what comes back changes the vocabulary and keeps everything else, which isn’t actually a rewrite, it’s a synonym pass.

---

What changes between audiences, and what doesn’t

Three things are allowed to change. One is not.

Allowed to change: the level of detail, what’s assumed as known, and the thing the reader is meant to do next. An executive needs the outcome and the cost; the team doing the work needs the specifics the executive didn’t need.

Not allowed to change: the underlying claim. If the source says a feature cuts a five-step process to one click, every audience’s version says that, because a version that quietly drops or inflates the claim isn’t an adaptation, it’s a different, unverified statement.

---

Step 1: name what’s fixed before asking for the rewrite

Source copy:
[paste it]

The one claim or fact this has to preserve, word for word if
possible: [state it]

New audience: [who, specifically, not just a label like "customers"]
What this audience already knows, that the original explains: [list it]
What this audience needs to do after reading: [the actual next action]

The “what they already know” field is what prevents over-explaining. A version for your own engineering team re-explaining what the feature does, information they already have, reads as if it wasn’t actually written for them.

---

Step 2: ask for the rewrite with the claim locked

Rewrite the source copy for [new audience], using the details above.

Rules:
- The claim [paste it] appears, unchanged in substance
- Cut anything the audience already knows
- End with the actual next action, not a generic call to action
- Match the level of formality this audience would expect

---

Step 3: check the claim survived, not just the tone

Read the new version and find the sentence carrying the fixed claim. If it’s not there, or it’s been softened into something vaguer (“significantly faster” instead of the actual number), that’s the rewrite failing at the one thing it wasn’t allowed to touch. Ask for it back specifically rather than accepting a close-enough version.

This version dropped or softened the core claim. Put back the exact
fact: [paste it]. Keep everything else about this version as-is.

---

Worked example

Source, written for customers: “The new export option cuts a five-step process down to one click, so your weekly report takes seconds instead of twenty minutes.”

Rewrite target: an internal Slack post for the support team, who’ll field questions about it and already know what the export feature does.

What they already knew and got cut: any explanation of what “export” means in the product. What they needed and the customer version didn’t have: what to tell a customer whose one-click export doesn’t show up yet, because the rollout is staged.

Result kept the core claim, five steps to one click, verbatim, dropped the customer-facing framing entirely, and added the one thing this specific audience needed: what to say when a customer asks why they don’t have it yet.

---

When it breaks

The rewrite is technically accurate but reads like a translation, not writing. This usually means step 1’s “what they already know” list was too thin, so the rewrite still explains things this audience doesn’t need explained, just with different words. Go back and be specific about what to cut, not just who the audience is.

Every audience’s version ends up sounding identical anyway. Check whether the “next action” in step 1 was actually different across versions. If every audience is being asked to do the same thing, there was only one real message, and multiple versions may not be needed.

The claim quietly changed in a way that’s now defensible-sounding but not true. This is the failure mode this whole method exists to prevent. If it happens, the fix isn’t a better prompt, it’s reading every adapted version against the original claim before it ships, every time, not just when it feels risky.

The audiences are similar enough that a full rewrite isn’t worth it. Sometimes one piece with a short addendum for the second audience covers it. Two full versions of nearly the same thing is more to maintain, not more precise.

---

What to try next

Keep the fixed claim written down somewhere both versions can be checked against later, not just in the prompt that generated them. When the underlying fact changes, a discount ends, a feature’s rollout completes, both versions need updating together, and that’s only possible if you know they share a claim.