I have read two of these documents (referring to the key points of the plan) and find them rather unsatisfactory; they would not be able to mobilize the masses. Among all the documents submitted to this meeting, those pertaining to rural affairs are by far the best: each one sets out its points clearly, arranges them in a logical sequence, uses smooth and fluent language, and generally exhibits distinctiveness and accuracy. The document on people’s communes is particularly outstanding. Next come works such as Comrade ×××’s essay on education, which, though lengthy, displays a high level of theoretical insight and excels in logic, precision, and clarity. The resolution on the militia is also very well written—easy to read and leaving the reader with a pleasant impression. The commercial-related documents are likewise decent and readable. By contrast, the industrial documents rank among the lowest. The only relatively good one is a short opinion paper that flows smoothly and outlines the main principles. As for the “Key Points of Explanation,” they are the worst. I read them twice but still did not grasp their meaning; after finishing, no clear image remained in my mind. They merely piece together various ideas without any coherent structure, lacking both logic and accuracy, let alone vividness. Moreover, the prose is awkward and disjointed, showing no commanding overview or sweeping momentum. The root cause lies in the author’s insufficient understanding of dialectical logic, formal logic, grammar, and rhetoric. I even suspect that he is not truly an expert on industry and does not yet fully comprehend it; otherwise, he would surely be able to express his thoughts effectively in writing. To say he lacks a grasp of dialectical logic means, specifically in the context of industry, that he fails to understand the unity of opposites within industrial processes, the internal interconnections, and the distinction between principal and secondary contradictions. Consequently, Yang Si’s writing can never achieve the grand sweep and unstoppable force of a mighty river. Despite having repeated this point countless times, his style remains unchanged: his mind is as steadfast as a mountain peak, while his pen produces work as cold and rigid as ice. Had he relaxed just a bit that year, readers might have felt a slight sense of forgetfulness, thereby perhaps extending his sojourn in the heavenly realms by another year or two!  In fact, I quite admire the author. Judging from the content of his documents, he is a proponent of progress, a staunch advocate of striving upward with greater speed, better quality, and lower cost. His political line is correct; what falls short are his theoretical acumen and his writing style. I reiterate this point most earnestly to draw attention—though my previous ten thousand lectures on this subject have been like a gust of northwest wind. If you disagree, we can engage in a public debate via correspondence. I am putting forth my views in a broadside; you should do the same. Should you concur, I suggest you hold consultations. It seems to me that you treat matters of this kind as trifles, preoccupied instead with more important issues. Yet the documents you produce are so unappealing that no one wants to read them—could it be that you deliberately intend to discourage readers? My recommendation: rewrite these documents once, twice, three times, or even more, aiming for the same level of excellence as the people’s commune document. Why not undertake a thorough study? As officials responsible for industry, you seem to rely solely on practical experience without engaging in any theoretical reflection, resulting in such subpar documentation. Another suggestion: when you have time, draft forty articles outlining an industrial blueprint; if that sounds promising, then proceed. Craft a fine piece advocating a five-year drive to catch up with the United States and a seven-year effort to surpass Britain, and commit yourselves to realizing these goals!

The “Key Points of Explanation” bear no date, carry no signature, and it is unknown who wrote them. There are several copies listed in the table, but aside from the author himself, it is doubtful that anyone else could make sense of them. Why is this so?