Is ClearSpec affiliated with ASD or STEMG?

No. ClearSpec is an independent, proprietary tool. It is not affiliated with ASD or STEMG, does not reproduce or certify ASD-STE100, and does not include any protected dictionary content.

Can a tool make my documents Simplified Technical English?

No tool can. Controlled language requires an approved dictionary, writing rules and human review. A checker can surface patterns that controlled-language writing tends to avoid, which is a useful step, not a certification.

Which should a small documentation team choose?

If your sector expects a controlled language, adopt it properly with the official specification. Otherwise plain-language principles plus a consistent termbase deliver most of the benefit at a fraction of the overhead.

Reviewed 18 August 2026 · next review 17 February 2027

Simplified Technical English vs plain language

Both aim at documents readers can follow the first time. They differ in how much they constrain the writer, how much governance they need, and how they are verified.

Last updated 18 August 2026 · Written and reviewed by Jonatan Tensetti · Tensetti Tools

Method 1.0.0 · reviewed 18 August 2026 · next review 17 February 2027

ClearSpec uses an independent proprietary clarity method. It is not affiliated with ASD/STEMG, is not an ASD-STE100 checker or certification service, and does not certify ISO 24495-1 conformance.

Comparison of controlled language and plain-language approaches
Dimension	Controlled language (STE-style)	Plain language
Core mechanism	An approved dictionary plus writing rules: one approved word per meaning, restricted grammar.	Principles applied with judgement: name the actor, one action per step, concrete quantities.
Vocabulary	Constrained. Unapproved words are replaced with approved equivalents.	Open. Technical terms stay when they are the precise word.
Governance	Substantial: dictionary management, writer training, review workflow.	Light: a house style page and a shared termbase.
Best fit	Aerospace, defence and maintenance documentation, and sectors where a customer requires it.	Software, industrial products, medical-adjacent instructions, and any team without a mandate.
Translation benefit	High and measurable — constrained input is what machine translation likes most.	Real but smaller: consistent terms and short steps still cut cost.
How conformity is judged	Against the official specification, by trained reviewers and approved tooling.	By reader outcomes: task success, support contacts, review comments.

What they agree on

Both approaches want one action per step, a named actor, one term per concept, short sentences, and warnings that state the hazard before the avoidance. If you adopt only those, you have taken most of the available gain regardless of which label you use.

How to choose

If a customer contract or sector practice requires a controlled language, adopt it properly, licence the specification and train the writers. Half-adopting it produces the overhead without the benefit.
If nobody requires it, start with plain-language principles and a shared termbase. Measure support contacts and review comments before adding governance.
Either way, keep a term list. Terminology consistency is the single change that helps readers, translators and search at the same time.

What this tool does, and does not do

ClearSpec applies its own deterministic checks for actor, ambiguity, consistency, structure and safety wording. It does not reproduce, implement or certify any standard, includes no protected dictionary content, and does not establish technical accuracy, legal sufficiency or safety. It is a review aid for humans who keep the final say.

Questions

Is ClearSpec affiliated with ASD or STEMG?: No. ClearSpec is an independent, proprietary tool. It is not affiliated with ASD or STEMG, does not reproduce or certify ASD-STE100, and does not include any protected dictionary content.
Can a tool make my documents Simplified Technical English?: No tool can. Controlled language requires an approved dictionary, writing rules and human review. A checker can surface patterns that controlled-language writing tends to avoid, which is a useful step, not a certification.
Which should a small documentation team choose?: If your sector expects a controlled language, adopt it properly with the official specification. Otherwise plain-language principles plus a consistent termbase deliver most of the benefit at a fraction of the overhead.

References

Checked 18 August 2026. Referenced for context only; no standard text or dictionary content is reproduced.

ISO 24495-1:2023 Plain language — Part 1 — ISO. Official standard information page. Context only; the standard is not reproduced or certified.
Official ASD-STE100 site — ASD Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group. Ownership, current resources and trademark context. ClearSpec is not affiliated with ASD/STEMG.
ASD-STE100 official downloads and AI white paper — ASD STEMG. Official materials. Copyright and stated limitations respected; no dictionary content is copied.
Clear content objective — W3C WAI. Accessibility-oriented clear-content guidance informing general principles.
Writing for web accessibility — W3C WAI. First-party accessibility writing tips informing general principles.

Run the free clarity check

22 checks, no account, and the text is analysed in your browser.

ClearSpec reports automated heuristics from method version 1.0.0. The clarity indicator is not a measure of technical accuracy, usability, legal sufficiency, safety or standards conformance. A competent person must decide the final wording, especially for safety content.