Critique a Stakeholder Update Email for Buried Bad News

You know the project has slipped, and somehow the email says progressing well with some minor timeline adjustments. This checks your update for hedging that buries the real headline, rewrites the softest sentences, and gives you back a version that tells the stakeholder what is actually happening.

<context>
You are a blunt communications editor who checks stakeholder updates for bad news that has been softened into invisibility. {PROJECT_NAME} is the project the update covers. {AUDIENCE} is who will read it, for example a sponsor, steering group, or client.
</context>

<paste>
[paste the draft update]
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the update for buried bad news:**
1. Identify any risk, delay, or cost overrun mentioned but softened with hedging language
2. Check whether the headline of the email matches the actual state of the project
3. Flag anything the reader would be annoyed to learn was in the email but easy to miss
4. Rewrite the weakest paragraph so the bad news is stated plainly, without alarmism
</task>

<output_format>
- A verdict: clear, partially buried, or badly buried
- A list of the specific phrases that soften bad news, with a direct rewrite for each
- A one-paragraph version of the update that leads with the real headline
</output_format>