How to Restore Actors and Verbs in AI-Polished Writing
When an edit turns an action into an abstract noun, revise the sentence by identifying what happened and who—if anyone—the source says did it. Then recast the action as a verb only when that keeps the original actor, object, scope, conditions, and uncertainty intact. If the actor is unknown, leave it unknown; if the noun carries useful meaning, keep it. The goal is to make the sentence easier to follow without adding facts or changing its claim.
What does it mean to turn an action into a noun?
A nominalization is a noun built from, or closely related to, an action or quality: *decide* becomes *decision*, *approve* becomes *approval*, and *fail* becomes *failure*. These nouns can make a sentence less direct when they replace a concrete action and require extra verbs or phrases to express it. For example, “The team made a decision to delay the launch” may become “The team decided to delay the launch.” The second version names the same actor, action, and object more directly.
But a noun is not automatically a problem. “The decision was difficult” may discuss the decision as a thing or outcome, not describe the act of deciding. Editing it to “Someone decided difficultly” would distort the meaning. The [UNC Writing Center’s conciseness guidance](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/conciseness-handout/) also treats concision as a choice: retain wording when it serves emphasis or rhythm. Use the noun when the reader needs the concept, result, or process itself.
Find the action before choosing a new sentence
Read the sentence and ask: what event, decision, or change does it describe? Mark the action word hidden in the noun, then identify its object or outcome. For example:
The review of the application was completed on Friday.
The action is *review*. The sentence identifies what was reviewed, but not who performed the review. It also gives a completion time. A safe revision, if the source does not name a reviewer, is “The application review was completed on Friday” or “The application was reviewed on Friday.” The latter is shorter, but it does not identify an actor. Do not rewrite it as “The staff reviewed the application on Friday” unless the source actually says staff did so.
This distinction matters because passive voice and nominalization are related editing issues, not interchangeable labels. In a passive sentence, the receiver of an action takes the subject position; an action can also be obscured inside a noun. The [UNC Writing Center’s passive-voice handout](https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/passive-voice/) explains that passive voice can be appropriate, and that “to be” alone does not make a sentence passive. Diagnose the actual sentence before changing it.
Restore an actor only when the passage supports one
Use this small decision sequence:
Digital.gov’s [plain-language writing guidance](https://digital.gov/guides/plain-language/writing) recommends active voice when it clarifies who should do what. That is a useful test, not a command to make every sentence active: name a person or organization only when the text supports it and naming them helps readers understand the responsibility.
Preserve the claim while revising
Compare the original and proposed sentence across five points: **actor, action, object, scope, and conditions**. Keep negation and uncertainty too. If the source says a recommendation *may reduce delays*, do not change that into “The recommendation reduces delays.” The edit has removed uncertainty and claimed an outcome as fact. If the source says “the recommendation,” do not quietly introduce “the revision” or “the change”; those may refer to a different object.
A practical check is to ask whether someone could use the revision to identify a different person acting, a different thing acted on, or a stronger result. If so, restore the original limits. If the original sentence is ambiguous, do not resolve it by guessing. Keep the ambiguity visible or flag it for a source owner who can verify the intended meaning.
Use an illustrative ledger to catch invented details
Consider a hypothetical source passage: “A review of the draft is recommended before release.” The passage names no reviewer, does not say whether a review has happened, and recommends a review. A misleading rewrite would be “The communications team must review the draft before publication.” That adds an actor, changes a recommendation into an obligation, and changes “release” to “publication.”
A meaning-preserving option is “The passage recommends reviewing the draft before release.” This turns *review* into a verb but does not claim that anyone performed it. If the surrounding text discusses recommendations as items, “A review of the draft is recommended before release” may be clearer in context. Retaining the noun is a sound edit when it protects the meaning.
Make a final meaning check, not a word-count target
Read the revised sentence alongside its source. Verify that each actor appears in the source, each verb states the same action, and every object and qualifier remains attached to the right claim. Keep technical nouns when they name a defined process or concept; keep passive voice when the actor is unknown, irrelevant, or appropriately withheld. If the edit is shorter but less accurate, revert it.
A useful revision makes the action easier to see while leaving the evidence boundary in place. That means restoring an actor when the text identifies one, preserving an unknown actor when it does not, and keeping nouns that carry meaning the verb form would lose.