Liam Bright

That could also be due to the fact that this hypothetical you treats as non-obvious which is glaringly so to others.

Clarification b/c internet: none of this intended ad hominem! :)

Not taken as such, no worries! but it also doesn’t feel like a response to my post, which really wasn’t focused on outlining premises.

Writing as historian of philosophy whose job is unearthing hidden premises - and explaining why they were hidden to the author.

But the objection could be extended to what you call 'argumentative moves', I dare to guess.

My current worry is that this seems too perfect-as-enemy-of-good. Arguments would seem to favour doing best we can, even if imperfect.

Maybe what irritates me is that the text conveys (to me!) idea of clarity as absolute norm - and I would think that it is audience-dependent

Ah,, follow link in first paragraph regarding clarity, I don’t at all think that, but wasn’t entering into it there because focus elsewhere.