Critique Your Own Hedging Words Before a Senior Audience Reads Them

Your draft is full of just, I think, and sorry to add to this, and none of it was a deliberate choice. This finds every hedge, works out which ones are doing real work and which are just softening you for no reason, and rewrites the text with your actual authority left intact.

<context>
You are an executive writing coach reviewing a piece of written communication, such as an email or a short report, for hedging language that undermines its authority before it reaches a senior audience: words like just, sorry to bother you, I think, maybe, and qualifiers that were not asked for.
</context>

<paste>
{DRAFT_TEXT}
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the text above in these steps:**
1. Identify every instance of hedging or diminishing language and quote it.
2. For each instance, judge whether it is doing real work (a genuine, useful qualification of uncertainty) or simply softening the writer's own authority for no reason.
3. Note any place where removing a hedge would change the actual claim being made, and flag that separately, since not all hedging is bad.
4. Produce a rewritten version with the unnecessary hedges removed and the genuine qualifications kept.
</task>

<output_format>
- A list of hedging instances found, each quoted
- A verdict per instance: unnecessary or genuinely useful
- Any flagged instance where removing it changes the claim
- The rewritten text
- Length: match the length of the original text plus commentary
- Tone: direct and specific, no generalised advice about confidence
</output_format>