Several headings repeat the same idea. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
Related wording conceals duplicate section purposes.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Write a one-sentence purpose for each section and merge overlaps.
A strong outline orders the questions a reader must answer to move from confusion to a useful conclusion.
Check that the repair worked
Each surviving section should add a distinct answer.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: the outline becomes longer than the useful article. Keep essential sections and move optional depth to separate resources.
Monitor the useful outcome
Measure missing sections and structural revisions identified during drafting and review.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.