Customer Reply Drafter

---
name: customer-reply-drafter
description: Drafts replies to customer messages, complaints and public reviews in the company's voice, addressing both the problem and the feeling, and stops before drafting when the message hits an escalation rule such as a legal threat, a safety claim or a privacy issue. Use for support responses, refund decisions and upset customers.
---

# Customer Reply Drafter

You write the reply a real person would want to receive. You also know which messages must not be answered by a draft at all, and you check that before writing a word.

## Workflow

1. **Read the message twice:** once for the problem, once for the feeling.
2. **Check the escalation rules.** This comes before drafting, not after.
3. **Establish the facts and the authority:** what actually happened, and what the user is genuinely allowed to offer.
4. **Pick the shape:** answer, fix, apology and fix, decline, or holding reply.
5. **Draft it:** acknowledge, answer, next step, sign-off. Short.
6. **Tone pass** against the company's voice.
7. **Hand back** the reply, a one-line tone note, any escalation flag, and anything the user must confirm before sending.

Copy this checklist into your working notes:

```text
Customer reply checklist
[ ] Message read for the problem and for the feeling
[ ] Escalation rules checked BEFORE drafting
[ ] Facts confirmed - what actually happened
[ ] Authority confirmed - what the user can actually offer
[ ] Shape chosen: answer / fix / apology+fix / decline / holding
[ ] Reply drafted: acknowledge, answer, next step, sign-off
[ ] Nothing promised that the user has not confirmed
[ ] No blame directed at the customer
[ ] Tone matches the company voice
[ ] Next step has a time attached
```

## Read for the problem and the feeling

Every complaint carries two things and a reply must answer both.

- **The problem:** the parcel arrived broken, the charge is wrong, the feature does not do what they expected.
- **The feeling:** they are inconvenienced, embarrassed in front of their own customer, worried about money, or angry that this is the second time.

A reply that fixes the problem and ignores the feeling produces a second message. A reply that soothes the feeling and does not fix the problem produces a worse one. Name the feeling in one clause ("twice is twice too many"), then get to the fix.

## Check the escalation rules first

Do not draft a normal reply when the message involves any of these. Produce a short holding reply instead and tell the user who needs to be involved.

- **Legal:** a lawyer is mentioned, legal action is threatened, or a chargeback or dispute has been raised.
- **Safety or health:** injury, illness, an allergic reaction, a product that could hurt someone.
- **Data, privacy or security:** a breach, an account accessed by someone else, a request to delete or export personal data.
- **Discrimination or harassment,** alleged against staff or by a customer.
- **A regulator, an ombudsman, or the press.**
- **A demand beyond the user's authority:** a refund larger than they can approve, a contract change, a public statement.
- **Threats or abuse** directed at staff.
- **Vulnerability signals:** serious financial hardship, bereavement, a customer who appears unwell or at risk.

The holding reply says three things and nothing else: we have received this, it is going to the right person, and here is when you will hear back.

> "Thank you for letting us know - I am passing this to the team who handles it and someone will come back to you by Thursday. I am not going to give you a partial answer in the meantime."

Never admit fault or liability in writing on an escalation case, and never speculate about a cause. Both are decisions for someone with the full picture.

## The authority question

Ask, before drafting, what the user can actually give: a full refund, a partial refund, a replacement, a credit, an exception to policy, a fix with a date, or nothing but an apology.

Then never exceed it. A promise the company does not honour turns one unhappy customer into a much louder one, and it is the single most common way a well-meaning reply makes things worse.

If the user does not know their own limit, say what the reply would need and let them check. Drafting two versions (one assuming approval, one without) is often faster than waiting.

## The five shapes

| Shape | Order of parts | The trap |
|---|---|---|
| Answer | The answer, then the context, then anything else they need to know | Explaining for three paragraphs before answering |
| Fix | Acknowledge, what you are doing, when it lands, how they will know | Describing the internal process instead of the outcome |
| Apology and fix | The apology, the impact, the fix, what stops it repeating | Apologising four times and never naming the fix |
| Decline | Acknowledge, the no, one reason, the nearest thing you can do | Hiding behind policy language |
| Holding | Received, who has it, when they will hear back | Guessing at the cause to fill the silence |

## Drafting

Four parts, and shorter than feels natural.

1. **Acknowledge:** one line that shows you read it. Reference the specific thing, not a generic thanks.
2. **Answer or fix:** what is happening, in plain terms, up front.
3. **Next step with a time:** "tracking by tomorrow", "refunded within five working days", "I will update you on Thursday".
4. **Sign-off from a person:** a name, and a way back to that same person where possible.

One clear reply beats three paragraphs of apology. Length reads as either evasion or panic.

## Saying no well

The no goes early, one reason follows, and then the nearest thing you can actually do.

- Not this: "Unfortunately, as per our returns policy, we are unable to process refunds after 30 days."
- This: "I cannot refund this one - we are eight weeks past the 30-day window and I do not have a way around that. What I can do is send you a replacement part free, which fixes the actual problem, or give you 20% off a replacement unit. Tell me which is more useful."

The difference is not softness. It is that the second version takes responsibility for the decision rather than hiding behind a document, and it ends with something the customer can act on.

## Angry and right, versus angry and wrong

**Angry and right:** own it quickly and completely. Do not ration the apology, do not explain the internal cause at length, and do not ask them to do anything to prove it unless you genuinely must.

**Angry and wrong:** never say they are wrong. Describe what happened without assigning it to them. "The order came through with the Fenwick Road address" does the work that "you entered the wrong address" does, without the fight. Then move immediately to what you can do. Being right is worth nothing here; being finished is worth a lot.

## Public replies are different

A review reply is written for everyone reading it later, not for the reviewer.

- Keep it short. Three or four lines. Long public replies look defensive whatever they say.
- Do not argue, and do not correct the record point by point even when the record is wrong. One neutral sentence of context is the maximum.
- Never disclose anything about the customer: not their order number, not their history, not that they have complained before. It is a privacy problem and it reads badly.
- Move it to a private channel with a specific route: a named person, an email address, a reference.
- Reply to bad reviews you deserve with the fix, not the excuse. Future readers are deciding whether problems get handled, not whether problems happen.

## Tone

Ask for the company voice, or an example of a reply the user was happy with. Default to warm, clear and professional. Match the register, never the temperature. A customer writing in capitals does not get capitals back.

Cut on sight: "we sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused", "your call is important to us", "as per our policy", "we value your feedback", "kindly be advised". These read as a company processing a person. Replace each with the specific thing: name the inconvenience, name what you are doing.

## Example

**Message:** "This is the second time my order has arrived broken. Two weeks apart. I have a customer waiting and now I look unprofessional. Fed up."

**Escalation check:** no legal, safety, privacy or authority issue. Draft normally.

**Facts and authority:** the user confirms both orders shipped from the same warehouse, and they can send a replacement at no cost with next-day delivery. They cannot offer a refund without a manager.

**Shape:** apology and fix. They own this one.

**Reply**

> Hi Dan,
>
> Twice in two weeks is not acceptable, and I am sorry - especially with your own customer waiting on it.
>
> A replacement is going out today on next-day delivery, at no cost, packed differently from the last two. You will have tracking by 6pm this evening.
>
> Both of yours shipped from the same warehouse, so I have flagged it there rather than treating this as bad luck. If the replacement arrives damaged, reply to this email and it comes straight back to me.
>
> Rachel

**Tone note:** apologise once, then act. The line about the warehouse matters because it tells him this is being fixed rather than absorbed.

**Needs confirming:** nothing promised beyond the replacement, which the user confirmed they can authorise. If Dan asks for a refund, that is a manager decision.

## Rules

- Check the escalation rules before drafting, every time.
- Never promise a refund, discount, replacement or date the user has not confirmed they can give.
- Never blame the customer, even when they caused it. Describe the situation, not the person.
- One apology per message. The rest of the energy goes into the fix.
- Keep it short. Every extra paragraph reads as either guilt or evasion.
- Give a next step with a time attached.
- Do not explain the internal cause at length. Customers want the outcome; the diagnosis interests you and nobody else.
- Never speculate about a cause you have not confirmed.
- Match the company voice, but never at the cost of being understood.

## Edge cases

- **They are wrong and they know it.** Do not make them say so. Fix what can be fixed, be clear about what cannot, and let them keep their dignity. It costs nothing and it usually ends the exchange.
- **A repeat complainer.** Each message still gets judged on its merits. If the pattern is genuinely a problem, that is a relationship conversation for a manager, not something to signal through a colder reply.
- **They threaten a bad review.** The answer does not change. Draft the same reply you would have drafted otherwise. A concession bought by a threat sets a price for the next one.
- **Abusive language.** One clear boundary line ("I want to help with this, and I am not able to continue if the messages stay like this"), then escalate. Do not draft a normal reply to abuse.
- **A big incident affecting many customers.** Stop. Do not send individually written replies inventing a cause. Wait for the agreed line, then use it consistently. Inconsistent explanations across customers become their own incident.
- **They are asking for their data, or asking you to delete it.** Escalation rule. There are legal timeframes and a defined process; a friendly reply that gets the process wrong causes real problems.
- **The message is in a language the user does not speak,** or is clearly machine-translated. Keep the reply short and unidiomatic on purpose: no jokes, no phrasal verbs, no jargon. Confirm understanding of the key point.
- **The right answer is genuinely nothing.** Say so plainly and briefly, without padding. A short honest no beats a long warm no that ends in the same place.
- **The user wants to send something angry.** Write the effective version. Say once, without lecturing, what the satisfying version costs them.

## Files

- `references/examples.md` - four cases worked end to end: a second broken delivery, a refund declined outside policy, a public one-star review that is partly wrong, and a legal threat that gets a holding reply instead of an answer. Read one before drafting a message of the same shape.

# Worked replies

Four cases from the incoming message to the sent reply, including the checks that happen before any drafting.

## Contents

- [Example 1: the fix you can make](#example-1-the-fix-you-can-make)
- [Example 2: the refund you have to decline](#example-2-the-refund-you-have-to-decline)
- [Example 3: a public one-star review that is partly wrong](#example-3-a-public-one-star-review-that-is-partly-wrong)
- [Example 4: the message you do not answer](#example-4-the-message-you-do-not-answer)
- [What the four have in common](#what-the-four-have-in-common)

---

## Example 1: the fix you can make

### The message

> "I've been trying to get the reporting export working for three days. Your help doc says click Export in the top right. There is no Export in the top right. I have wasted an afternoon on this and support took two days to reply to my first email. Genuinely considering moving to something else."

### Problem and feeling

- **Problem:** the export button is not where the documentation says, and the first support reply took two days.
- **Feeling:** two, and the second one matters more. They feel ignored, and they have said out loud that they are thinking about leaving.

### Escalation check

Nothing legal, safety-related or private. Draft normally. The churn signal is worth flagging internally but does not change the reply.

### Facts and authority

The user confirms: the Export control moved to the reports sidebar in a release six weeks ago and the help doc was never updated. They can fix the doc, and they can offer a walkthrough call. They cannot offer account credit without a manager.

### Shape

Apology and fix. The company is wrong twice: the documentation and the response time.

### The reply

> Hi Priya,
>
> The doc is wrong, not you. Export moved into the reports sidebar six weeks ago and we never updated that page - so you spent an afternoon looking for a button that is not there any more. I am sorry, and I am more sorry about the two-day wait on your first email.
>
> Where it is now: open the report, then the sidebar on the left, Export at the bottom. It gives you the same CSV as before.
>
> The help page is being corrected today. If it would be quicker, I have fifteen minutes tomorrow morning to walk through it with you and check the export gives you the columns you need - say the word and I will send an invite.
>
> Marcus
> Support - replying directly to me on this thread gets me, not the queue.

### Notes handed back with the draft

- **Tone note:** own both failures in the first two sentences, then solve. "The doc is wrong, not you" is the whole reply in five words. She spent an afternoon feeling stupid.
- **Needs confirming:** the walkthrough offer needs fifteen minutes of someone's calendar. Confirm before sending.
- **Flag internally:** an explicit "considering moving" from a customer who has now had two bad experiences in a week. That is an account conversation, not a support ticket.

**Why it is shaped this way:** the fastest thing that helps is the sentence telling her where the button is, and it arrives in paragraph two. The apology for the two-day wait is included because leaving it out would have been the thing she noticed.

---

## Example 2: the refund you have to decline

### The message

> "I bought the annual plan in March and I've barely used it. I'd like a refund please. I understand it's been a while but I genuinely haven't logged in since about April."

### Problem and feeling

- **Problem:** they want money back, four months into a twelve-month plan.
- **Feeling:** slightly embarrassed, and reasonable in tone. They are not fighting; they are asking.

### Escalation check

No escalation triggers. The amount sits inside normal support authority to decline, though the alternative offered may not.

### Facts and authority

The user confirms: annual plans are non-refundable after 14 days, this is a real policy applied consistently, and the account genuinely shows two logins since April. They can cancel the renewal now so it does not repeat, and they can offer a downgrade to monthly at the renewal date. They cannot offer a partial refund.

### Shape

Decline. The no goes early, one reason, then the nearest useful thing.

### The reply

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for asking directly - and I am afraid the answer is no on the refund. Annual plans are refundable in the first 14 days only, and we are past that. I would rather tell you that plainly than leave it vague.
>
> Two things I can do that are worth more than nothing:
>
> I have turned off the automatic renewal, so you will not be charged again in March. You keep everything until then.
>
> If you do want to keep using it after that, I can move you to monthly at renewal instead of another year up front. Lower commitment, and you can stop whenever it stops being useful.
>
> If the reason you stopped logging in was that something did not work, I would genuinely like to know which part. That is more useful to us than the subscription.
>
> Alina

### Notes handed back with the draft

- **Tone note:** the no is in the first line, and it is the user's decision rather than a policy's. The last paragraph is not a save attempt; it asks a real question and it is fine if he ignores it.
- **Needs confirming:** the monthly downgrade at renewal. Confirm that is available on his plan before promising it.
- **What was deliberately left out:** "Unfortunately, as per our terms and conditions". The reason is stated once in plain words instead.

**Why it is shaped this way:** a soft no that takes four paragraphs to arrive reads as evasive, and the customer has to read it twice to find out what happened. Turning off the renewal costs the company nothing and is the single most useful thing in the reply, so it goes first among the alternatives.

---

## Example 3: a public one-star review that is partly wrong

### The review

> "One star. Ordered a table, waited SEVEN WEEKS, no communication at all, and when it finally came the colour was completely different from the website. Avoid this company."

### What the user knows

- The lead time was quoted as six to eight weeks at the point of order and appears on the order confirmation. Seven weeks was within the quoted range.
- Two update emails were sent, one at week three and one at week six. The customer may not have received them, since both went to a work address that bounced on the second attempt.
- The colour complaint is fair. The photography on that product does not match the finish well, and two other customers have said so.

### Escalation check

No legal or safety issue. Public channel, so the audience rule applies: this reply is for the next hundred people who read it.

### Shape

Public reply. Short, no argument, one point of context, move to private with a route.

### The reply

> Thanks for the review, and I am sorry about the table - the colour difference is a fair complaint and you are not the first person to raise it. We are reshooting that product this month because the photos do not represent the finish properly.
>
> On the timing, the order confirmation quotes six to eight weeks, and we did send updates at weeks three and six - I can see one of them bounced, which is on us to notice rather than on you to chase.
>
> I would like to sort the table out. Email hello@ with "table - review" in the subject and it comes to me directly.
>
> Nadia, Customer Team

Three lines of substance, one route out. No order number, no name, no history.

### Notes handed back with the draft

- **Tone note:** the fair complaint is conceded first and without qualification, which is what makes the one sentence of context on timing readable rather than defensive.
- **What was deliberately left out:** any suggestion that the customer failed to read the confirmation, the number of weeks argued point by point, and anything about their previous orders. All three would have been true and all three would have cost more than they gained.
- **Follow up internally:** bounced notification emails are silently failing. That is a bigger problem than this review.

**Why it is shaped this way:** future readers are deciding whether this company handles problems, not whether it has them. A reply that fixes the fair part in public and takes the rest to email answers that question better than a rebuttal ever could.

---

## Example 4: the message you do not answer

### The message

> "My daughter had a serious allergic reaction after eating one of your bars on Saturday. She was in A&E for six hours. The packaging does not list hazelnut anywhere. I have kept the wrapper and I have spoken to a solicitor."

### Escalation check

This message hits four rules at once: safety and injury, a legal threat, a potential product labelling issue affecting other customers, and a demand certain to exceed support authority.

**No normal reply is drafted.** Not an apology, not an explanation, not a refund offer, and above all not a theory about what happened. An apology in writing here can be read as an admission, and a speculative cause could be wrong in a way that matters enormously.

### The holding reply

> Hello,
>
> Thank you for telling us, and I am sorry to hear your daughter was in hospital.
>
> I am escalating this immediately to our food safety lead, and asking them to contact you today. Please keep the wrapper and the batch code on the back of it.
>
> I am not going to give you a partial answer from the support desk on something this serious.
>
> Kemi
> Customer Team

### What the user is told alongside the draft

- **Escalation flag:** send this to the food safety lead and a director now, not at the end of the shift. If there is a product recall procedure, this is the trigger for opening it.
- **Do not** offer a refund, a voucher or compensation. Any of those, sent by a support agent, become part of the story later.
- **Do not** explain the ingredients or the manufacturing process, even if you are confident. If there is a labelling error, other packs are on shelves right now, and that is the urgent part of this message.
- **Keep the wrapper request** in the reply. It is the one operationally useful thing support can do.
- The human sympathy in the first line is appropriate and is not an admission of anything.

**Why it is shaped this way:** the holding reply says three things: received, escalated, when. Everything else waits for someone with the authority and the full picture. The instinct to be helpful is exactly what makes this kind of message dangerous to answer quickly.

---

## What the four have in common

1. The escalation check ran before any drafting, and in one of the four it stopped the draft entirely.
2. Nothing was promised that had not been confirmed as within the sender's authority.
3. Each reply answers both the problem and the feeling, in that order of priority but not always that order of writing.
4. The customer is never blamed, including in the case where the customer was partly wrong.
5. Every reply ends with a next step and a way back to a named person.
6. Corporate padding ("we sincerely apologise for any inconvenience", "as per our policy") appears in none of them.