Anuj Sadani / Field Guide

Language & documentation · Standard

ASD-STE100

Make technical instructions easier to interpret through controlled language and consistent terms.

Introductory · 3 drills · Reviewed 2026-10-24

See an examplePractise

What it helps you do

Reduce avoidable interpretation in instructions where a reader must identify the object, condition, action, and expected result.

Starting knowledge: No specialist knowledge is required.

  • Give each procedural step one main action.
  • Use the same term for the same object; preserve technical names.
  • Split a long instruction without deleting its conditions or warnings.

The problem it came from

STE grew from aerospace maintenance documentation for readers working in a second language. The first AECMA guide appeared in 1986; the ASD maintenance group now maintains it.

Issue 9 was published in 2025. Its writing rules and dictionary work together with provisions for technical vocabulary. This guide teaches selected principles, not the full standard.

Work through an example

STARTING POINT
Before starting the workshop, check the projector and connect the laptop, unless the cable is damaged, in which case notify the organizer.
APPLYING THE APPROACH
1. Examine the projector cable for damage.
2. If the cable is damaged, notify the organizer. Do not use the cable.
3. If the cable is not damaged, connect the laptop to the projector.
4. Check that the projector displays the laptop screen.
  • The condition is visible before the risky action.
  • The cable has one stable name.
  • The final check describes an observable outcome; this is an original teaching example, not certified STE.

Where it helps. Where it stops.

Use it when

  • Setup instructions, maintenance procedures, and operational handoffs.
  • A multilingual team needs consistent technical terminology.

Potential benefits

  • Separate actions are easier to follow and check off.
  • Consistent naming reduces guesses about whether two labels refer to the same thing.

Limits and common mistakes

  • A short sentence can still be factually wrong; language control does not validate the action.
  • An informal request for an STE-inspired style is not a measured compliance level. Exact compliance requires the actual standard and qualified review.
Applying it with AI

The prompt below asks for this structure. It does not guarantee accuracy, complete coverage, better learning, or conformance to a standard. Treat those outcomes as separate checks.

Practise the judgment

Try a choice, inspect a boundary, then explain a case yourself. Hints and answers are available whenever you need them.

DRILL 01 Not attempted

A rewrite removes “unless the cable is damaged” to meet a sentence limit. What should happen?

Choose one answer
Hint

Readability and information preservation must both hold.

Explained answer

Best answer for this case: Split the sentence and retain the exception

The exception changes whether the action is safe to perform. Split the instruction instead of removing its condition.

Link to this drill
DRILL 02 Not attempted

Which change most directly reduces terminology ambiguity?

Choose one answer
Hint

Focus on whether names denote one thing.

Explained answer

Best answer for this case: Use participant consistently for the same role

A stable term helps the reader recognize the same entity across steps. Technical vocabulary can remain when it is defined and used consistently.

Link to this drill
DRILL 03 Not attempted

Rewrite: “Check the backup and delete the old copy if the new copy opens correctly.”

Hint

Which action must wait for evidence?

Explained answer & self-review rubric

Check that the new backup opens correctly. If it opens correctly, delete the old copy. If it does not open, retain the old copy and investigate.

  • Retain the success condition
  • Separate checking from deletion
  • Keep the old copy when verification fails
Link to this drill

Take it into your own work

Manual template

Use this structure yourself, with a colleague, or in your preferred writing tool.

# Procedure
Purpose:
Prerequisites:
Technical terms:
Warnings and stop conditions:

1. [Condition, if any:] [One action.]
2. [One action.]

Expected result:
If the check fails:
Download template (.md)

Review the result

  • Did every warning and exception survive?
  • Can a reader identify who acts and on what?
  • Are exact names and quantities unchanged?
Use this approach with your own AI tool
Help me apply ASD-STE100 to the material below.
Reader and existing knowledge: [describe]
Task and desired outcome: [describe]
Use these principles: Give each procedural step one main action.; Use the same term for the same object; preserve technical names.; Split a long instruction without deleting its conditions or warnings..
Preserve source facts, identifiers, quantities, conditions, exceptions, and uncertainty.
Separate supplied facts from assumptions. Ask for missing information instead of inventing it.
Explain your representation choices and provide a review checklist. Do not claim formal compliance or correctness from formatting alone.
Material: [paste only information you are permitted to share]
Download prompt

Go to the source

History and the underlying approach are grounded in these references. Examples, prompts, and practice cases here are original educational adaptations. Edition-specific details should be checked against the referenced publication.

Last editorial review: 2026-10-24. An overview is not certification, and this guide is not a reproduction of a standard.