On Clarity

Clarity is not a matter of expression, but of reasoning and structure.

What we mean by clarity

Clarity exists when how something works is made explicit, and the logic can be examined without relying on narrative explanation.
In other words, clarity exists when the logic is inspectable.

Clarity is present when:

• the key drivers are identifiable
• the relationships between drivers and outcomes are visible
• the logic holds even without narrative support

Clarity is therefore a property of reasoning and structure, not of wording, presentation, or persuasion.

If clarity depends on structure rather than explanation, then it becomes essential to distinguish between how things work and how they are described.

Why Clarity Matters

Clarity matters because it improves both the quality and the speed of understanding.

Clarity determines where understanding resides.

• When clarity is present, understanding is embedded in the structure of the reasoning itself – for example, a waterfall chart that makes the contribution of each pre-defined driver explicit. Understanding can then be examined, challenged, and reused.
• When clarity is absent, understanding lives in explanations, narratives, and individuals – for example, in written commentary. Understanding must be recreated by rebuilding a mental model and re-inferring causality. This shifts cognitive and emotional workload onto people, increases dependence on interpretation, and makes understanding fragile across time, context, and personnel.

In organisational settings, the cost of missing clarity is not a lack of information, but a continual need to re-explain, re-interpret, and re-negotiate meaning. Clarity reduces this burden by grounding decisions in shared, inspectable logic rather than in persuasion, memory, or authority.

Structure and storytelling serve different roles

Structure makes how things work inspectable.
Storytelling (narrative explanation) describes what happened and why it matters.

They serve different purposes and produce different artefacts.

Structure artefacts make logic explicit

Structure answers questions such as:

• What drives what?
• How do changes propagate?
• Where do trade-offs exist?

Typical structure artefacts include:

• an analysis or financial model that separates drivers from outcomes
• a variance, bridge, or decomposition analysis showing cause-and-effect contributions
• a scenario or sensitivity analysis illustrating how outcomes respond to change
• a chart that makes relationships visible, such as:
  • a waterfall showing drivers of change
  • a trend with a clear baseline and variance
  • a comparison that isolates one factor at a time

These artefacts:

• make assumptions visible
• show typical structural patterns
• remain interpretable without narrative
• allow challenge, testing, and revision

They make the underlying logic of the situation inspectable.

Storytelling artefacts describe and frame

Storytelling answers questions such as:

• What should we focus on?
• What does this mean for us?
• What action is implied?

Typical storytelling artefacts include:

• a written report or executive summary
• slide headlines and commentary
• spoken explanations and briefings
• narrative annotations and callouts

These artefacts:

• guide attention
• provide context and emphasis
• support decision-making conversations

They do not create logic; they describe and frame logic that already exists.

Why the distinction matters

Stories can support understanding, but they cannot replace structure.

Clarity is built through structure first, and only then supported through narrative explanation.

When structure is weak, narrative may compensate but cannot rescue it.
When structure is clear, narrative becomes optional.

Clarity is achieved upstream through structural analysis

True clarity is formed upstream, through:

• disciplined observation
• grounded concepts
• explicit assumptions
• disciplined reasoning
• coherent mental models

Models externalise thinking

Analysis models are not technical artefacts – they are externalised mental models.

A sound model:

• separates drivers from outcomes
• exposes causality and trade-offs
• makes relationships explicit
• allows scrutiny, criticism and revision

Formatting does not make a model robust.
Discipline does.

Visuals support thinking early, and reveal thinking later

When used as an analytical tool, visualisation supports reasoning – helping reveal patterns, relationships, and potential causality.

When used as a communication tool, visualisation does not add meaning.
It compresses and reveals meaning that already exists in the structure.

If insight collapses when visualised for communication, the thinking was unclear.

Language shapes, but does not constitute thought

Language influences attention and framing; structure precedes expression.

Clarity lives in understanding – language merely reports it.

Clarity is a discipline

Clarity is:

• not a personality trait
• not a communication skill
• not an aesthetic preference

It is a discipline – learned, practised, enforced.

How to test clarity

If you need:

• excessive explanation
• repeated rewording
• more slides to clarify
• stories to defend logic

Clarity is missing – not in the language, but in the thinking.

Clarity is ethical

In organisations, clarity reveals responsibility – vagueness hides it.

Clarity is not pedantry.
It is respect for decision-makers.

Clarity requires:

• explicit definitions
• traceable logic
• visible assumptions

Clear thinking invites criticism.

Models should be:

• open to challenge
• capable of being wrong
• improved through refutation

Consensus without structure is fragile.
Clarity survives disagreement.

Conclusion

Clarity is created upstream through reasoning and structure.
Language and presentation merely reveal it.

© 2025 Colin Wu. All rights reserved.
Quotations permitted with attribution. No reproduction without permission.