The problem isn't the reader

Jargon isn't the same as precision.

Finance professionals defend technical language as if the two are identical. They're not.

Some technical terms are genuinely necessary. Accrual, materiality, going concern. These have specific meanings. Using them with a finance audience is legitimate.

But most finance jargon isn't like that.

As per the agreed parameters.

It should be noted that expenditure has trended upward.

The position going forward will require careful monitoring.

None of that is precise. It's just formal. And formal isn't the same as clear.

The worst jargon doesn't just obscure meaning. It allows the writer to avoid committing to anything.

Significant variances have been identified sounds precise. But significant how? Caused by what? What happens next?

It says a lot without saying anything.

Plain English forces you to be specific. That's why it feels harder to write. You can't hide behind the language.

The test I use: could a reasonably intelligent non-specialist understand exactly what I mean?

If not, the problem isn't the reader.