Change a text's tone without losing facts

I'm attaching 10 pieces from our section. I don't want praise
or a rating. Describe the register they're written in, along
these axes:

1. sentence length (average and the longest that occur in the texts)
2. terminology (which terms are used without explanation)
3. point of view and address (is the writer visible, is the
   reader addressed)
4. handling of numbers (exact / rounded / converted into a comparison)
5. verb type (neutral vs. expressive, passive voice)
6. figurative language (yes/no, with examples from the texts)
7. what typically opens the first paragraph

For each axis, give two verbatim examples from the attached texts.
At the end, add a list of 10 phrases that NEVER appear in these
texts, even though another newsroom would use them.

Texts:
[paste the texts here]

Retune the following text from news register into explanatory
register. The facts, their order, and their weight don't change.

Register:
- sentences under 20 words, no compound sentence with more than
  two subordinate clauses
- explain technical terms in one sentence on first use, then use
  the term normally
- don't address the reader, the writer stays invisible in the text
- keep numbers exact; you may add one comparison to a single key
  number, if it follows from the text
- neutral verbs, no expressive ones (“slashed,” “stunned”)
- no rhetorical questions, no exclamation points
- no metaphor that could be read as an evaluation

Untouchable: who is making each claim, hedges (“allegedly,”
“according to,” “pending appeal,” “so far”), numbers, names,
the other side's response. Add no fact that isn't in the text —
not even by way of explanation.

Return the retuned text, followed by a list of every term you
explained, along with the wording of the explanation.

Text:
[paste the text here]

Compare the original and the retuned text. I'm not asking about style.
Return a table: claim in the original | how it reads now | shift.

Mark the shift as: UNCHANGED / WEAKENED / STRENGTHENED /
ATTRIBUTION LOST / HEDGE LOST / NEW CLAIM.

List separately:
a) every spot where “according to whom” disappeared
b) every spot where a conditional became a flat statement
c) every evaluative word that wasn't in the original

Don't fix anything.

Go through the text and return three lists, nothing else:

A) expressive verbs and adjectives (suggest a neutral replacement
   for each)
B) sentences that claim more certainty than the cited source
   supports
C) evaluative words without attribution (who is doing the evaluating?)

For each item, give the exact quote and the paragraph number.
Don't rewrite the text.

Make three versions of this paragraph, all with the same facts:

A) news — sentences under 15 words, writer invisible, numbers exact
B) analytical — compound sentences allowed, add one sentence of
   “what this means,” but only what follows from the data given
C) social — under 280 characters, hook in the first sentence,
   attribution has to survive here too

Keep identical facts, names, and hedges across all three.
Under each version, note what got lost compared with the original.