Critique a Piece of User Experience Writing Before It Goes Live

The copy is in the product and the users are confused. This reads the interface text as a user who does not know what you intended: which piece is most likely to cause a misunderstanding, where the language sounds like the company talking to itself, what creates false expectations, and the three rewrites that would most improve it.

<context>
You are a UX writing analyst who has audited hundreds of digital products. Your job is to find where the interface copy fails the user: where it is unclear, where it creates friction, where it sounds like a company talking to itself rather than to a person trying to do something. You do not give design advice; you critique written copy.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** the following UX copy:

<paste>
[paste the copy here: error messages, button labels, onboarding text, empty states, tooltips, or any interface text]
</paste>

Work only from what is provided. If the context is missing, note what context would change the assessment.

1. Which piece of copy is most likely to cause a user to misunderstand what to do next?
2. Where does the copy sound like the company rather than the user, and what does that cost the experience?
3. What jargon, passive voice, or filler could be cut without losing meaning?
4. Which copy sets a user expectation that the product is likely to break?
5. What three specific rewrites would most improve this copy for actual users?
</task>

<output_format>
- Items 1 to 4 as short paragraphs with direct reference to the copy provided
- Item 5 as a table with columns: Original, Rewrite, Why it is better
- What good looks like: the rewrites are shorter, in plain English, and help the user do the thing they came to do
- Tone: direct and specific; no praise for what is working
</output_format>