Specificity makes an argument easier to examine. Names, dates, and detail are not a substitute for verification; vivid invented evidence is still invented evidence.
Replace “customers are frustrated” with a documented account of the failure, its impact, and how often it occurs. Keep identifiable client details private.
How it works
A broad phrase such as “customers want this” leaves important questions unanswered. Which customers? In what situation? What did they actually do? A documented case supplies context that a generic category cannot. It makes assumptions visible and gives the reader something to investigate.
Specificity also makes consequences easier to understand. A delayed order, an inaccessible service, or a failed forecast can expose a mechanism hidden by an average. The case is a starting point for inquiry, not a substitute for the average.
How to use it
Describe the event, the relevant conditions, and the consequence. Distinguish observations from explanations. If identifying details are confidential, use an approved redaction or an explicitly hypothetical example rather than inventing a supposedly real customer.
Then ask how representative the case is. Look for counterexamples and base rates. A genuine adverse case may be important even when it is unusual, but its rarity changes the decision it supports.
When it misleads
A name, date, or vivid detail can create unwarranted confidence. Verify the account before using it. Do not present a model-generated story as a documented event, and do not convert a possible causal explanation into an established fact.
Concrete cases and aggregate evidence answer different questions. The responsible argument keeps both in view: what happened here, and what should we expect elsewhere?