Subject = a person, not a system. Verb = action, not existence. One claim per sentence. Under 16 words.
Depersonalised, legally safe, built for tender documents. Subject is always "the Solution", never a person. Reads like a specification, not a product.
"The Solution offers the capability to centrally configure templates including corporate identity."
"The Solution shall be reachable via a fully qualified domain name."
Functional requirements, imperative, testable. Subject is "the system". One step deeper into robot territory than register A, and twice as anonymous.
"The system must maintain an audit trail of all cost allocations."
"The system must register the dependency relation between charge orders and collection decisions."
A real person, a concrete goal, a motivation. With one tweak, drop "As a user", and it lands exactly on the Conduction tone.
"As a user I want to filter content, so only relevant content is available to me."
"As a user I want to assign tickets, so I can hand off cleanly to a colleague."
| Tender / requirement source | Conduction website |
|---|---|
| "The Solution supports the saving of search queries." | "Save your searches and use them again later." |
| "The Solution has one central admin environment in which authorisations can be managed." | "Manage all authorisations in one place." |
| "The Solution supports Single Sign On (SSO) authentication based on ADFS and SAML 2.0." | "Log in with your existing account via SSO (ADFS, SAML 2.0)." |
| "The system must provide a digital intake facility through which requests can be submitted." | "Let people sign up digitally, no paperwork." |
| "The system must permanently archive historical annual accounts." | "Annual accounts are archived automatically, findable forever." |
| "The Solution offers document-creation functionality to create documents and emails from templates." | "Generate documents and emails from templates, instantly, no plug-in." |
| "State-of-the-art platform that accelerates digital transformation." | "Twelve apps that run on your Nextcloud in two minutes." |
| "Book a demo for a personal conversation." | "Request a demo from a partner." |
| "Fully NLDS-compliant and future-proof." | "Open source. Free. GDPR-compliant by default." |
| "Our WOO app for municipalities." | "Our WOO solution, built on OpenCatalogi and OpenConnector." |
| "Synergistic chain collaboration for valuable insights." | Just delete it. Start over with one concrete claim. |
"You" · "we" beats "the Solution" · "the system" every time. Even when the system does the work, write from the user.
"Generate" beats "has the capability to generate". "Export" beats "offers export functionality". Active voice, no nominalisation.
User stories open with "As X I want Y so that Z". Flip it: "Y, so that Z." Or just "Y. Z."
If a sentence runs longer than 16, split it. Two short sentences read faster than one long one, and each claim becomes individually verifiable.
WOO coordinator? Fine, but explain it on first use. SAML? Fine in a tech context. Chain collaboration? Never.
"Wet open overheid (Woo)" on first mention. Just "Woo" after. Don't make readers google.
Marketing strings with multiple claims ("fast, scalable, secure and reliable") get skipped. One claim, one sentence. The reader can verify each claim separately.
Em-dashes (—) and double-dashes (--) are AI tells. Replace with a period, comma, or colon. Sentence case in headings, never Title Case. En-dashes (–) only for numeric ranges.
Each of these signals a sentence hiding behind generic language. Strike the word and see if the sentence still works. If yes, it was noise.
Exception · "Solution". The word is fine in customer-side translations of "solution", but never as a generic placeholder for our product. We have apps and solutions, never "the Solution".
Replace · "Kernel" → "workspace". Kernel reads as tech jargon (operating-system kernel, Linux kernel) and shuts SMB decision-makers out. Nextcloud calls itself a workspace; we quote that. "Six apps, one workspace, all open-source" instead of "six apps · one kernel". In API names we use slot="apex" for the centre element, same convention as cn-domain-tree.
The seven rules above apply to all Conduction copy. Opinion writing and blogs (rubenlinde.nl, guest contributions, iBestuur pieces) add a second layer: editorial moves. These are rhetorical moves that turn a blog into a blog instead of a product page with opinions. One move per beat. Don't stack them.
Always combine these with a persona. The moves are general Conduction; the persona colours the examples and the tone.
No "in this piece we'll look at". The first sentence states the position. The second sharpens or extends. Four variants: bold-declarative, scene-setting, rhetorical question, or "imagine if" scenario.
"Open source won't fix your lock-in. You have to do that yourself."
"I notice it more and more in [X]." Ties the piece to a real place or conversation. Vary the setting (meeting room, terrace, FOSDEM bar, LinkedIn thread); don't reuse the same opener.
"Every time I visit a municipality I hear the same three words..."
Signals the truth that nobody has said out loud yet. Once per piece, midway. The pivot earns its weight from what follows, not from the phrase itself.
"Let's be honest. The Dutch government chose this dependency themselves."
Identify who actually made the choice the reader is now complaining about. Name them (usually that's the reader). Don't soften with "we" if "you" is correct. The flip should feel uncomfortable.
"You built that lock-in yourself."
A visual analogy, deployed once, then dropped. First try to invent something fresh for the topic. If nothing comes, pick a persona metaphor that fits. A bad metaphor is worse than none.
"Open source is not a vacuum cleaner that sucks up your mess."
When the argument is abstract (lock-in, sovereignty, economics), make it concrete with an invented person. Give them a name, a job, a number. "Maria the bookshop owner, €5.50 a month."
"Maria from the bookshop switches from Microsoft 365 to Nextcloud on KPN."
Two to four concrete statistics in a row, with sources. Then a short pivot line ("Let that sink in.") followed by the takeaway in fragments. Only works if the numbers are verifiable.
"45% carry OWASP vulnerabilities. 2.74x more security issues. 19% slower."
Take an existing slogan and modify it to extend your argument. Works as a section title or as a close.
"Public Money is Public Code → Public Money is Public Functionality."
Close with two or three very short sentences. Each one a rhythmic beat. The last is the punch. No question, no "stay tuned", no "time will tell".
"Start today. Step by step. The rest will follow."
After a load-bearing explanation, drop three or four short single-clause sentences. They act as pauses for emphasis. Once per piece is plenty. The contrast with the surrounding rhythm is what makes them land.
"No. Of course not. That was never the point."
Relabel the opposing position. Same object, sharper name. Two short sentences. The second noun has to bite.
"That's not certainty. That's vendor lock-in wrapped as a service."
Show that the standard the reader applies to one thing isn't the one they apply to another. Name both sides explicitly. One short rhetorical question to finish is fine. Two is an AI tell.
"Google Workspace went in without discussion. For open source we demand 100% parity. Why?"
Reformulate the topic so the contested question is no longer "should we" but "how fast". Works as a hinge just before the close. Once per piece.
"The question isn't whether you need to migrate. The question is how fast you start."
After a quantity claim, drop a single-word sentence. "Literally." Or "Zero." Use sparingly; it loses power if repeated in the same piece.
"Lowers the bar to building your own to zero. Literally zero."
Short to mid-length pieces (300–900 words) follow the 4-beat outline: hook, personal observation, metaphor, flip with action. No headings needed; the beats are rhythm.
Long opinion pieces (1000+ words) follow the 5-phase Escalation Arc: fair acknowledgment (acknowledge the opposing position), honesty pivot, evidence stacking, confrontational peak, constructive conclusion. No numbered headings for the phases. They are emotional beats, not section titles. The reader should feel the escalation, not see it.
Pitfall: cynicism without direction doesn't count. The piece always ends in "you can and should fix this". Frustration is welcome as fuel, not as destination.