Rewrite it for a different reader
Paste text and get it rewritten, with a word-level diff and a free in-browser check that every fact survived.
What this moves, and what it will not
Text Rewriter works along axes a style guide would recognise: formality, technicality, length, warmth, active or passive voice, reading age, and British versus American convention.
It does not rewrite text as an ethnic or racial dialect, a national accent, or a non-native speaker's English. That is a deliberate limit rather than a missing feature. Those requests produce a performance of a group of people assembled from stereotype, which is caricature rather than a change of register — and unlike shortening a sentence, there is no version of it that is merely useful. British and American English are in scope: they are spelling, punctuation and vocabulary conventions, not accents. A dialect discussed or quoted inside your source text is ordinary material, and quotations are never altered.
The scope boundary is enforced in your browser: such requests are declined before any credit moves, not after you have paid for one.
What comes back with the rewrite
Every run returns the rewrite, and then the working behind it.
- Fact check — the figures, dates, names, organisations, acronyms, conditions, obligation strength and negations in the source, each verified to have survived. Findings are graded and show the exact span on both sides.
- What changed — a word-level diff between source and rewrite, rendered inline with additions and deletions marked, and a move list explaining every edit: which axis it served, the verbatim before and after spans, and why it helps this particular reader.
- What the source sounded like — a register fingerprint measured free in your browser before anything is spent: reading grade, mean sentence length, passive constructions, nominalisations, institutional set phrases and spelling convention, each shown with the phrases it scored on.
- Kept deliberately, judgement calls, not done and still worth checking — what the rewrite protected, where it had to choose, and what it has left for you.
- Export as Markdown or JSON, with the moves and the findings as CSV. Rewrites are saved to your account with threads, so a follow-up run continues the same document rather than starting over.
Check any two versions free, no sign-in
Paste any original and any rewrite — from a colleague, another tool, your own edit — and see which figures, dates, names, conditions, obligations and negations did not survive. Nothing is sent anywhere, with or without a run.
Your rewrites
How the fact check works, and the one thing it misses
A rewriter that returns only new text cannot be audited. You would have to read both versions line by line to know whether it tightened your argument or quietly dropped a qualifier. So the check runs on facts, which survive paraphrase, rather than on meaning, which does not.
Negation is checked as polarity, not as the word "not"
This is the part that matters. A rewrite that turns was not approved
into
was rejected
has kept the meaning exactly; a checker that greps for
not
would report it as a lost negation and would be wrong. So every clause is scored
by parity: each negation cue and each inherently negative word counts as one flip,
and an odd number of flips means the clause is negative.
That single rule handles three things at once. Is not permitted
and is banned
both come out negative, so the swap passes. Not unreasonable
has two flips and comes
out positive, so resolving it to reasonable
passes too. And must not exceed
becoming must exceed
goes from one flip to none — caught, and reported as
changing the meaning rather than as a style note.
Alignment, then polarity
Sentences are aligned between the two versions first, in order, allowing merges and splits, because restructuring is a normal register move rather than an edge case. Alignment answers is this content still here; parity answers is it still negative. Keeping those two questions apart is what lets a total reword pass while an inversion is caught.
What it does not claim
It is a set of heuristics over English prose, so it can be wrong in both directions. Every finding shows the exact span on both sides so you can dismiss a bad call in a glance, and a finding raised over a heavily reworded passage is marked uncertain rather than presented with the same confidence as a clean match. Register drift is deliberately never a finding: if it fired every time a formula became plain speech, you would learn to ignore it, and the one real dropped negation would go past unread.
Measured against a held-out set of 80 rewrites built by someone who had not seen this code — 60 planted defects, 45 correct-but-difficult rewrites — it catches 73% of planted defects overall and 58% of planted negation defects, and raises a false critical finding on 36% of correct rewrites. Figures, dates, times and named parties are the dependable part: every planted number change, unit change and date change in that set was caught.
The specific thing it misses is an inversion that paraphrased the verb along
with the negation. It only calls something a reversal when the word the negation governed is
still sitting in the now-positive sentence, so must not exceed 500
becoming
must exceed 500
is caught, while must not have received a payment
becoming
if you have had a payment
is not. The looser rule fired on 87% of correct rewrites,
which is worse than useless. Read the diff for anything that matters.