What specific challenge does a reviewer face when attempting to reformulate vague language if the original drafters deliberately employed it to mask an underlying unresolved disagreement between parties?

The specific challenge a reviewer faces when attempting to reformulate vague language that original drafters deliberately employed to mask an underlying unresolved disagreement between parties is that clarifying the language inevitably unearths and forces a confrontation with the very conflict the drafters sought to avoid or defer. Vague language, in this context, refers to wording that lacks specificity, precision, or clarity, allowing for multiple interpretations. It is deliberately employed when parties cannot agree on a precise formulation of a point, choosing instead an ambiguous phrasing to achieve superficial consensus or to defer conflict for the sake of progressing the document or negotiation. The underlying unresolved disagreement is a fundamental point of contention or opposition between parties that they could not reconcile. When a reviewer attempts to reformulate this language, which means to rewrite or revise it for greater clarity and precision, they cannot simply choose one interpretation without implicitly rejecting or undermining others. This act of clarification transforms a seemingly agreed-upon (though ambiguous) point into a clear point of contention, immediately exposing the original unresolved issue. The challenge is not merely linguistic, but inherently diplomatic and strategic: the reviewer risks derailing the entire document or relationship by forcing parties to revisit a difficult negotiation they intentionally bypassed. There is no singular, objective 'correct' way to reformulate such language because its vagueness served a specific political or relational purpose for the original drafters. Any attempt to make it precise requires the reviewer to either make a substantive decision (favoring one interpretation, which is beyond a typical reviewer's mandate and authority) or to initiate a new, potentially contentious, negotiation among the original parties to reach a true resolution, which again, is outside the scope of merely reforming text. The reviewer must navigate the risk of unraveling a fragile agreement and potentially being perceived as reopening settled, albeit poorly articulated, matters.