The Principle of Specificity: Elevating Commentary Beyond Redundancy

By: Serenity Phanes | Paragon Spirit Productions

Repetition

A recent question in a judges’ forum raised an issue I see every season: the concern that commentary sounds repetitive.

“Tell me I’m not the only one that struggles to not sound repetitive (or like cornbread) on every scoresheet! Give me some different ways to word things… cause they all have the same issues it seems.”

At one end, this is professional growth: wanting stronger commentary. At the other, it’s what happens under strain—high volume, fatigue, and the physiological stress response that narrows language and increases pattern reliance. In high-volume evaluation, the brain will conserve effort by identifying patterns. That is not a flaw in judgement; it is the operational reality of adjudication.

Repetition is an expected component of objective evaluation. To identify a pervasive issue and consistently flag it across unrelated performance units is a demonstration of confidence. It reflects assuredness in the quality of the assessment relative to the established criteria.

Specificity

Comments appear "cookie-cutter" or mechanical only when they fail to provide the specific technical justification for the score. Because they offer no unique value to the recipient, comments that lack depth appear repetitive.

The remedy for redundancy is technical specificity; not a thesaurus.

Generic: “Synchronisation - Multiple timing issues in running tumbling passes performed throughout the routine.”

Specific: “Body Control - multiple issues with body control characterised by inconsistent arm placement from pass to pass, with visible variation in arm placement across athletes during the approach, lack of core engagement, and visible leg separation while transitioning through the inverted position; resulting in reduced efficiency of momentum transfer and timing issues in running tumbling passes performed throughout the routine.”

Rather than searching for synonyms, ask yourself: “How can I add specificity to be more precise in my delivery of this critique?”

A generic comment notes an error; a specific comment isolates the technical deficiency that caused it. By moving from observation to diagnosis, you provide unique value tailored to that specific performance, regardless of how many other teams demonstrate the same technical issues.

Style

When feedback is anchored in the specific technical reality of the performance, comments serve their intended function: to provide a clear rationale for the score based on expert analysis.

This is distinct from phrasing. Your choice of words is an element of your communication style; the specificity of your critique is a measure of your expertise.

Standard

Developing the technical eye required to identify root causes instantly is a learned skill. I provide professional development for adjudicators and panels who want commentary that is technically defensible and immediately actionable. Contact me for current availability for professional development or speaking engagements.

About the Author

Serenity Phanes is the founder of Paragon Spirit Productions. Paragon helps athletes, coaches, and organisations move and create with intention by delivering choreography, education, and professional development that merges artistry, strength, and process to support performance and well-being. Under Serenity Presents, Serenity also travels nationally for speaking engagements designed to elevate industry standards.

© 2025 Paragon Spirit Productions. All Rights Reserved.