I found your categorization of three ways to improve explanations to be useful, and they seem like they cover most of the issues.
However, I feel like the brunt of the article itself was too short to give me a good sense of what canonical forms are like in math, or how to apply them conversationally. In particular, I think having more examples (or making the examples clearer) for each item on your list would have been helpful.
Also, I personally would have also enjoyed a more technical explanation of how to think about canonical forms mathematically. (Which I would guess would help me understand the connection to conversations.)
I found your categorization of three ways to improve explanations to be useful, and they seem like they cover most of the issues.
However, I feel like the brunt of the article itself was too short to give me a good sense of what canonical forms are like in math, or how to apply them conversationally. In particular, I think having more examples (or making the examples clearer) for each item on your list would have been helpful.
Also, I personally would have also enjoyed a more technical explanation of how to think about canonical forms mathematically. (Which I would guess would help me understand the connection to conversations.)