As a fan of detective stories, I see plenty of surprise endings and plot twists. They can make good entertainment, but they don’t belong in technical writing.
Recently I read a report by an expert witness. He summarized his observations, identified the cause of the construction defects, and recommended remedial action. Strangely, the remedy had little to do with the cause of the defects. And the part of the project he wanted to remove and replace was the only area that wasn’t showing any distress. That is, he wanted to repair what wasn’t defective while ignoring the real problem.
It’s hard to see how such a report could be of use to his client—or anyone else. Had the case proceeded, the expert would have had to testify under oath, explaining how the evidence supported his conclusions and recommendations. Surprise endings are hard to justify.
As we’ve discussed previously, engineering reports for clients generally follow the same logic as the scientific method. That is, the report progresses from hypothesis to investigation to results, discussion, and conclusions. Each subsequent section of the report builds logically on the preceding sections. There should be no surprise endings; you should see the conclusions coming by the time you’ve read the results and discussion. That’s the only way you can have any confidence in them.