Words and phrases that shift risk, authority, and expectation

What this appendix is

This appendix is a risk-awareness and language-discipline reference for PD staff and supervisors.

It identifies:

  • common phrases that sound harmless but create institutional commitments,
  • why they are dangerous,
  • and safer alternatives that preserve accuracy without manufacturing authority.

This is not about tone policing.
It is about how language reallocates risk.

Who this is for

  • PD FSOs and LES
  • Supervisors clearing PD products
  • Anyone speaking or writing externally on behalf of the embassy

How to use this appendix

Use this as:

  • a pre-response check before emails, calls, or statements,
  • a clearance discussion tool,
  • and a training reference for LES writing in a second language.

If a phrase appears here, it should trigger a pause—not automatic deletion, but deliberate choice.

Core Principle

Commitments are often implied, not declared.

The most dangerous language is usually:

  • polite,
  • reassuring,
  • and intended to be helpful.

Category 1: Confirmation Language

Risky phrases

  • “We can confirm…”
  • “It is true that…”
  • “Yes, that happened…”
  • “That information is correct…”

Why this is dangerous

“Confirmation” implies:

  • verification,
  • endorsement,
  • and institutional knowledge.

Once confirmed, reversal is difficult.

Safer alternatives

  • “We are aware of reports regarding…”
  • “We have seen those claims, but cannot verify them at this time.”
  • “We do not have information to confirm that.”

Category 2: Knowledge Claims

Risky phrases

  • “We know that…”
  • “The embassy believes…”
  • “Our understanding is…”

Why this is dangerous

These phrases:

  • imply analysis is complete,
  • create attribution risk,
  • and may be quoted as official positions.

Safer alternatives

  • “Based on information currently available…”
  • “At this time, we have no information indicating…”
  • “Our assessment may change as additional facts emerge.”

Category 3: Process Implied as Outcome

Risky phrases

  • “We are reviewing the matter.”
  • “We are looking into it.”
  • “We are investigating.”

Why this is dangerous

These phrases imply:

  • formal investigations,
  • enforcement authority,
  • or future action.

They can trigger legal, political, or media escalation.

Safer alternatives

  • “We are gathering information.”
  • “We are seeking to understand the situation.”
  • “We are consulting with relevant offices.”

Category 4: Emotional Reassurance Language

Risky phrases

  • “We are very concerned.”
  • “We take this extremely seriously.”
  • “We share the public’s concern.”

Why this is dangerous

Emotional language:

  • escalates expectations,
  • suggests urgency or intervention,
  • may imply future action.

Safer alternatives

  • “We are aware of the situation.”
  • “We are monitoring developments.”
  • “We are following this closely.”

Category 5: Commitment and Promise Language

Risky phrases

  • “We will ensure…”
  • “We will make sure…”
  • “We will take action…”

Why this is dangerous

These create:

  • implied obligations,
  • timelines,
  • and accountability the embassy may not control.

Safer alternatives

  • “We will continue to engage as appropriate.”
  • “We will provide information if it becomes available.”
  • “We will follow standard procedures.”

Category 6: Endorsement and Alignment Language

Risky phrases

  • “We support…”
  • “We agree with…”
  • “We welcome…”

Why this is dangerous

Endorsement language:

  • signals policy positions,
  • can be misinterpreted locally,
  • may contradict internal deliberations.

Safer alternatives

  • “We note…”
  • “We are aware of…”
  • “We recognize…”

Category 7: Attribution Laundering

Risky phrases

  • “According to diplomatic sources…”
  • “U.S. officials say…”
  • “Embassy officials believe…”

Why this is dangerous

These phrases:

  • collapse internal debate into public authority,
  • invite misquotation,
  • and shift responsibility downward.

Safer alternatives

  • Avoid speculative attribution entirely.
  • Use explicit, on-the-record language only when cleared.

Category 8: Timeline Compression Language

Risky phrases

  • “Soon”
  • “In the coming days”
  • “Shortly”

Why this is dangerous

Implied timelines:

  • create pressure,
  • set expectations,
  • and can be weaponized if unmet.

Safer alternatives

  • “As appropriate”
  • “If and when information becomes available”
  • “At this time”

Category 9: Collective Voice Without Authority

Risky phrases

  • “The embassy feels…”
  • “We think…”

Why this is dangerous

They imply:

  • institutional consensus,
  • leadership endorsement,
  • or cleared positions.

Safer alternatives

  • Attribute internally (e.g., “Post assesses…” in cables)
  • Avoid collective voice externally unless authorized

Category 10: “Helpful” Speculation

Risky phrases

  • “This likely means…”
  • “It could be that…”
  • “Probably…”

Why this is dangerous

Speculation:

  • hardens into headlines,
  • collapses nuance,
  • and becomes attribution risk.

Safer alternatives

  • Do not speculate externally.
  • Keep speculation internal and clearly labeled.

Quick Pre-Response Check

Before sending or saying anything externally, ask:

  • Does this sentence imply confirmation?
  • Does it suggest future action?
  • Does it assume authority I do not hold?
  • Could this be quoted out of context?

If yes, rewrite or pause.

What Not to Do

  • Do not rely on intent to protect you.
  • Do not assume context will travel.
  • Do not “soften” language to be polite if it adds risk.
  • Do not improvise under pressure.

Bottom Line

Institutions rarely fail because someone lied.
They fail because someone spoke carefully but imprecisely.

This appendix exists to make invisible commitments visible—
before they bind the institution.