I do not attribute an artificial reading experience to one word. Human writing can be empty and formulaic, while an assisted draft can become natural through careful editing. My concern is the reading experience, not guessing the production method.
Question inflated language
Constant references to transformation or uniqueness may keep a piece away from its actual subject. I look for a reasonable relationship between the scale of the claim and the detail offered. A modest, specific observation can be more convincing.
If I cannot say what a paragraph taught me, I ask which task, decision or problem it concerns. Those questions help replace abstraction with something visible.
Listen to repetitive rhythm
Identical paragraph lengths and repeated three-step sections can feel mechanical. I follow the movement of the thought rather than introduce variation arbitrarily. Some explanations need a sentence; some comparisons need more room.
Repeated question-and-answer turns or identical contrasts can become habits too. Editing repetition includes these patterns, not only recurring vocabulary.
Specificity does not require an invented memory
I would not add an imaginary meeting or client experience merely to enliven the text. An openly illustrative example or a precise comparison can serve that purpose without creating a false past.
First-person writing also need not begin every paragraph with I. The details selected and questions asked can carry the writer’s perspective.
Preserve the substance
Making a draft more natural should not remove necessary terminology or depth. Complex ideas can still be expressed clearly and with energy.
I treat tone review as an editorial question rather than a detection contest: does this sentence tell the reader something, and is there a reason to say it this way?