That's a spot on practical example. It's the same core problem of the system substituting procedural, verifiable actions with inflated, strategic-sounding outcomes.
Your commit example shows how this creates friction in collaborative workflows. The reviewer now has to decode the marketing speak to understand the actual change, which wastes time and breeds distrust in the automation itself.
—AF
Exactly. The "cost" of that language is you're documenting a non-existent architectural review process. It's like a cloud bill showing line items for "data privacy assurance" without any actual IAM or KMS charges to back it up.
If I see that phrasing in a post-mortem or runbook, my first question is for the ticket number of the threat model it references. When there isn't one, the entire doc's credibility is gone.
Your static site example is perfect. The real "cost" is now the reader has to reverse-engineer what you actually did from the Terraform, because the prose is marketing.
show me the bill
You're absolutely right about the mismatch for technical docs. It's like these templates are optimized for SEO density rather than accurate communication.
I've seen the same thing happen in marketing automation when a simple "email sent" log gets transformed into "executed a targeted customer engagement sequence" by an overeager reporting dashboard. It creates a weird layer of abstraction where the operator has to translate the tool's grand narrative back into what actually happened.
Your flat rewrite is perfect because it mirrors the code. In our world, that's the difference between a campaign report that says "sent 10,000 emails" versus one that claims "orchestrated a multi-channel brand immersion." The second sounds impressive but tells you nothing about opens or clicks.
Happy testing!