Translate the Feedback in a Rejection Email Into What the Reviewer Actually Means

Rejection feedback from publishers, galleries, film funds, or competitions is almost always written to be kind rather than clear. The gap between what is written and what is meant can send you revising in entirely the wrong direction, or leave you certain you were rejected on merit when the reason was something structural. This translates the diplomatic language, identifies what the reviewer's criteria were, and isolates the one signal worth acting on, if there is one.

I received the following rejection feedback:

<paste>
{REJECTION_FEEDBACK}
</paste>

The context: this is a rejection of {WHAT_WAS_REJECTED} from {REJECTING_ORGANISATION}.

Translate what the reviewer is actually saying:
1. The plain-language version: strip the diplomatic phrasing and state what the reviewer is actually communicating about this submission
2. What it reveals about the reviewer's criteria: the specific things this reviewer or organisation values, based on what they chose to mention and how they mentioned it
3. What it does not mean: the things this feedback does NOT tell you, which you are likely to infer from it incorrectly
4. The one actionable signal: if there is a single thing in this feedback that is genuinely useful for improving the next submission, what is it? If there is nothing useful, say so.
5. Whether to respond: should I reply, ask for more detail, or not engage, and why