Edit of MarkM's original doc incorporating ChrisH comments

[tyg]

Chris, the "alleged" you had questions about is on line 32. The comments on the Google Doc were: Chris: "Why is this 'alleged'? Was that wording used in the source doc?" and my response was Tom: "The original wording was "reporting an alleged reason for its failure"". Feel free to change what's there if you don't think it's correct.

Other general question I have is whether this is about makeNotifer/SubscriptionKits or about Notifiers and Subscriptions. If the latter, should do a quick pass to change a lot of the Kit wording to just the type.

[erights]

The original wording was "reporting an alleged reason for its failure"

Yes. The term "reason" is conventional which is why I encouraged us to adopt it and why I'm using it. But the unqualified phrase "reason for failure" suggests a stronger claim than we intend. The reason variable might be bound to a new Error('A foo is not a bar'). For reason as the name of a variable, this would then in fact be the reason for failure. But it might not actually be why the failure happened. A foo is not a bar' is the claim by some piece of code that this is why the failure happened. But that explanation might be wrong.

[erights]

Comments so far.

I still have yet to review starting at "# SubscriptionKit"

[Chris-Hibbert]

But it might not actually be why the failure happened. A foo is not a bar' is the claim by some piece of code that this is why the failure happened. But that explanation might be wrong.

Can we say "the reason that was given for the failure"? Or "the reason the publisher gave"? It may be that we don't know whether they were right, but we do know that it was the reason we were given.

[erights]

Can we say "the reason that was given for the failure"? Or "the reason the publisher gave"? It may be that we don't know whether they were right, but we do know that it was the reason we were given.

I like that direction. How about "reported reason"?

[erights]

This review pass done.

[tyg]

Finished cleaning up PR comments.

[erights]

This reads much better than the original. Thanks!

LGTM