What makes internal company documentation 'not fit for public consumption' digitally?
Answer
It uses internal jargon or displays slightly off-brand messaging
In the context of modern digital content creation, a company may produce documentation that is factually accurate but still unfit for external audiences. The friction arises because while the material is technically safe to read (not physically hazardous), its reliance on internal jargon or slightly inconsistent messaging renders it unsuitable for public scrutiny. Releasing such material would constitute a failure of 'reputational fitness,' meaning it meets internal needs but fails the subjective standard required for the wider populace.
Related Questions
What defines the literal standard of fitness for human consumption?What distinguishes the figurative meaning of 'not fit for public consumption'?How does Kashrut illustrate a layered determination of fitness?What is the primary concern driving the figurative standard of fitness?What metric is predominantly used to evaluate the figurative standard of fitness?What makes internal company documentation 'not fit for public consumption' digitally?What is the literal consequence if a substance is deemed *not* fit for human consumption?What is the figurative equivalent of a health inspection for information sharing?Which terms serve as synonyms for the literal fitness of food to eat?What specific scenario illustrates figurative unsuitability in customer service?