Who this is for: Product teams preparing clear software update communication.
What to prepare
- An approved description of the product's core task.
- The update's verified behavior and eligibility.
- Screens that make sense without knowledge of the old interface.
Find the context an existing user would supply
Mark every phrase in the draft that assumes familiarity: “the new queue,” “now in Collections,” or “our usual approval flow.” For each, write the missing explanation. A prospect may not know what the queue contains, who reviews it or what approval changes. Choose the minimum context needed for the update's task; a full company introduction will bury the change.
Use this replacement test: can someone explain the scene without the words new, better or improved? If not, the announcement depends on a comparison that the audience cannot make.
- Old-version reference: “Collections now supports pinning.”
- Context-first replacement: “Keep the reference file visible while reviewing a set of documents.”
- Boundary to retain: only the verified file types and roles can use the action.
Worked example: introduce a reference panel
Imagine a fictional document-review product adding a pinned reference panel. The illustrative release fact says that reviewers can keep one selected document visible beside another. It does not claim automatic matching, comparison scoring or support for every file format.
A useful prospect opening is: “Review a draft beside the reference it must follow.” Show two supplied documents labeled Draft and Reference. Next, show the verified pin action and the resulting side-by-side state. End on the comparison the viewer can make themselves, rather than a claim that errors disappear.
- Context: a reviewer needs to consult an approved reference.
- Changed action: pin that reference while opening a draft.
- Observable result: both documents remain visible in the supplied layout.
- Scope: one pinned reference and the verified supported conditions.
- Next question: which document pairs are appropriate for this review?
Cut history that does not explain the decision
An old screen that required switching tabs could be useful if the comparison is accurate and visually simple. It is optional. A prospect can understand the current side-by-side task without learning every limitation of the previous interface.
Remove a sentence such as “After years of requests, we finally rebuilt the viewer” unless there is a specific, evidenced reason to include that history. It spends attention on the team's experience rather than the reader's decision. Keep necessary prerequisites: if a reference must be uploaded or approved first, show or state that condition.
Review without relying on insider explanations
Ask a reader unfamiliar with the product to identify the object, action and result from the planned scenes. Their unanswered questions reveal missing context. Do not interpret one person's reaction as evidence of conversion performance; use it to repair unclear words and transitions.
If the update requires extensive product education, separate an overview from the release explanation. The update asset can then link to the overview while still giving enough immediate context to be understood on its own.
Review checklist
- The opening names a task instead of an internal feature label.
- The current behavior is understandable without seeing the old version.
- The demonstration does not imply unverified automation or outcomes.
- A prospect can identify the objects, action and result.
- Prerequisites remain visible after historical background is removed.