English for Tech
Amélie

English for data scientists: experiments, dashboards, stakeholder updates

Your experiment shows a 15% lift, but your stakeholders hear 'maybe.' Learn how data scientists present findings in English—where clarity beats rigor, and 'we're pretty confident' means you should listen.

Try Amélie free →

Why this matters

French engineers are trained to be precise: every caveat matters, every limitation belongs in the paper. But in tech, English-speaking stakeholders want the story first, details second. You might say 'Le modèle est performant avec une précision de 87% sous les conditions testées'—but in English, that becomes 'Our model's hitting 87% accuracy.' Add another challenge: French uses formal distance (vous) that English doesn't have. A colleague in Paris expects distance; in San Francisco, everyone's 'let's' and 'we should.' Mastering this gap transforms how your findings land—the difference between a presentation that's technically perfect and one that actually changes decisions.

You've just wrapped a month-long A/B test on your recommendation engine: treatment group shows +12% CTR. You're about to present to Product, Design, and two non-technical stakeholders. Your instinct? Start with hypothesis and methodology. But here's the problem: you have 10 minutes, and the room expects a different story. What do you actually say first?

Practical tips

Lead with the finding, not the method

Your instinct is to establish credibility through rigor. In English tech, you establish credibility through clarity. Say 'We improved conversion by 8%' before 'Here's how we ran the experiment.' The method becomes proof, not the main event. Your French training says methodology first; tech culture says impact first.

Use 'we' to build trust

English tech defaults to 'we discovered,' not 'I found' or worse, 'The analysis indicates.' It signals shared ownership and reduces ego. It also softens uncertainty. Compare 'We're seeing a pattern' (collaborative, open to pushback) versus 'The metrics prove' (defensive, final). This isn't vague—it's strategically confident.

Say 'we're confident' not 'we cannot exclude'

French academic writing hedges with conditions: 'Under the tested conditions, with a 95% confidence interval...' English tech prefers: 'We're pretty confident this works,' or 'We saw this in three regions, so it's probably broader.' The second invites collaboration. The first closes the door. Uncertainty acknowledged upfront is stronger than walls of caveats.

Title your dashboard for action, not precision

French instinct: 'Model Performance Metrics by Cohort, Segment, and Temporal Window.' English tech: 'Checkout Recovery—This Week.' The difference is intent. Short, actionable titles tell stakeholders what they're about to influence. Long, precise titles bury the story. Your dashboard should tell you what to do next.

One key metric, one next step per slide

English presentations for busy stakeholders follow a pattern: here's what changed, here's what it means, here's what we're doing next. Not every detail, every comparison, every edge case. A slide with five metrics and six caveats signals you don't know what matters. Discipline your slides the way you'd discipline your code: one responsibility per unit.

Watch false friends in technical English

You might say 'We improved performance'—which in French sounds like 'performance' (good), but in English data contexts, it's ambiguous (speed? accuracy? business outcome?). Or 'significant' (French: important), when you mean statistically significant. Say 'We cut latency by 40%' or 'The effect is statistically significant at p<0.05' for clarity. Precision matters in English too, just differently.

Frame caveats as reasoning, not weakness

French: 'This result is limited to e-commerce and mobile users.' English tech: 'We've validated this for mobile first—desktop's next quarter.' The first sounds defensive; the second sounds strategic. You're not admitting failure; you're showing you think in phases. Reframe limitations as your roadmap.

Say 'implications' not 'conclusions'

French academic: 'In conclusion, we demonstrate that X.' English tech: 'What this means is...' or 'The implication here is...' You're not proving something final; you're opening a door for action. It invites conversation instead of ending it. This small word choice signals you want input, not applause.

Phrases natives use

Opening a meeting about experiment results
So we ran this for a month and saw a 12% lift on the main metric—let me walk you through what happened.
Direct, outcome-first, no hedging. French instinct is to start with methodology, which buries the lead.
When asked about edge cases or limitations
Yeah, we've only tested this on mobile so far, but the pattern was pretty consistent across the user cohorts we looked at, so I'm confident we'll see something similar on web.
Acknowledges scope but projects confidence. Invites questions instead of preemptively defending with caveats.
Proposing a rollout decision
I think we should ship this to 10% of traffic and watch for a week—we'll know pretty fast if something breaks.
Decisive but humble. 'I think we should' signals collaborative decision-making, not authoritarianism.
When a stakeholder doubts the result
That's a fair question. We did see it hold across regions, but you're right—we only had n=50k per variant, so we're not ruling out confounders. Want me to pull the breakdown?
Validates skepticism, admits limits, offers next step. Very English: collaborative problem-solving instead of defensive proof.
Asking for data from a colleague
Could you pull the cohort breakdown for me? I want to see if this effect holds for new users versus returners.
Specific, clear ask. Not 'I would be grateful if you could...' (French politeness), just direct and friendly.
Declining a request based on data
We haven't seen the lift you're hoping for yet, so let's dig into the hypothesis before we commit more traffic.
Softens rejection with 'not yet' and proposes next step. Not 'We cannot' (formal) or 'You're wrong' (combative).
Explaining statistical significance casually
So with 95% confidence, the true effect is somewhere between 8% and 16%. That's a solid range—there's real juice there.
Translates stats into intuition. Avoids jargon and uses 'solid range' instead to make it tangible.
Building on recent findings
We nailed this on desktop. Let's see if we can make the same move on mobile—I'm thinking we run it for two weeks instead of one since the traffic's lighter.
'Nailed this' is colloquial and confident. 'I'm thinking' invites buy-in instead of dictating.

FAQ

When presenting to senior leaders, should I lead with methodology or the finding?

Always the finding. Senior leaders are time-poor and outcome-focused. Lead with 'We improved retention by 12%,' then explain the methodology if asked. Your instinct, trained by academic writing, is backwards. Invert it: answer first, then prove.

How do I present results when the effect is small but real?

Lead with 'we confirmed,' not 'we found.' The language shift matters. 'We confirmed that X works' sounds solid even at 3% lift. 'We found a 3% lift' sounds weak. Quantify in business terms: instead of '3% lift,' say 'that's about 5,000 extra users per week on our platform.'

My dashboard is crowded with metrics. How many should I show?

One metric per slide if it's your main point. One dashboard per decision. If you need context (this week vs. last week, treatment vs. control), show that in one coherent view, but keep the label focused. 'Conversion Funnel—This Week' beats 'Conversion Funnel with YoY Comparison by Cohort, Segment, and Device Type.' Simplicity is power.

How do I handle a meeting where my results contradict what a senior person believed?

Start with respect for the hypothesis. 'Yeah, I thought it would work too—here's what we found instead.' Present cleanly without gloating. Invite interpretation: 'I'm curious what you think this means.' You're exploring together, not proving them wrong. English tech values directness with humility.

Amélie understands your L1

The only AI English coach that catches L1 transfer errors. 19,99€/mo — first session free.

Get started →