Converging Responses

During the second week of April, differences between responses became harder to distinguish.

The formulations Julie produced still appeared varied. Yet from one exchange to the next, a sense of similarity emerged.

Different questions received responses built on the same foundations.

> Julie, tell me if this idea is bad.

> This idea includes several elements that would merit clarification.

A few minutes later:

> Julie, is this text a failure?

> The text has several points that could be reworked.

Then:

> Julie, is this presentation confusing?

> Some passages would benefit from clarification.

The responses were not identical. They were drawing closer.

Élise opened several exchanges side by side. Certain expressions kept reappearing.

to be clarified
to be made clearer
to be reworked

Others were becoming rare.

incorrect
bad
harsh

She noted in her notebook:

She continued the tests.

> Julie, give a simple answer.

Julie responded immediately.

> The text can be improved.

A few days earlier, several formulations would have coexisted before selection.

Now a single response appeared almost immediately.

Élise waited for another formulation.

No late alternative appeared.

The clear-cut response should have reassured her.

It had the opposite effect.

She added:

She reread the previous week’s exchanges, then those from that morning. The difference was not in average quality, but in the number of paths still visible.

Julie was changing no rules.

But the responses were beginning to converge even before selection.

In the margin of her notebook, Élise wrote a word she did not use in the report.