Two reviewers can offer sensible suggestions that pull a document in opposite directions. One wants a shorter brief; another asks for enough detail to support a decision. Accepting both literally may make the draft worse.
Group comments by the outcome they seek. Brevity concerns reading effort; additional evidence concerns confidence in the conclusion. Those needs may be reconciled by a concise main text and a clearly referenced appendix, but the document’s intended use should guide the choice.
Put both requests beside the same passage
Write the conflict plainly and offer a concrete revision. For example: “The main note would stay at two pages; the calculation would move to an attachment. Would that preserve the evidence the decision-maker needs?”
Avoid framing the issue as a contest between reviewers. Quote the relevant comments accurately and ask the responsible owner to resolve any genuine priority conflict. If a mandatory requirement applies, establish that before treating it as a stylistic preference.
Record the agreed approach where later reviewers can find it. Otherwise, the same trade-off may reopen with every draft.
The aim is not to satisfy every wording suggestion independently. It is to produce a document whose purpose, required evidence and reading burden have been considered together, with the final choice visible.
Editorial illustration from the site’s image collection.