One of the steps to good information governance is to control inputs, and to educate your folks not to write words high in drama but low in meaning, or ambiguous, or absolute (when you don’t mean absolute).
So, you advise your clients not to write “Corvair-like” or “rolling sarcophagus” when describing your product. You counsel them to avoid characterizations of defect and keep business writing strictly factual. So, avoid characterizing something as a defects; instead, state the applicable factual parameters, such as 60cms (where the minimum in 65cms), or “the ball bearing did not meet specifications.”
But then even the Wall Street Journal slams you for educating your folks.
“U.S. Says GM Hid Recall Failures,” Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2014 A1 http://on.wsj.com/1t4cpjY
Any lawyer worth his/her salt would give the same advice. Don’t unnecessarily shoot yourself in the foot by writing dumb, unfactual stuff. For the 69 words employees were told not to use, go here. http://on.wsj.com/1n240ya Not a bad list; I would agree with everything but “failed,” “safety,” and safety-related.” Depending on context. Nothing deceptive IMHO. Now, as part of the Consent Order, they can’t tell people not to use these words?