If every introduction uses the same rhetorical question, start by preserving one representative example. It gives the investigation a concrete reference and makes the eventual correction easier to judge.
Find the likely cause
A habitual template replaces observation.
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
Alternate concrete scenarios, direct answers, and specific problems.
An introduction should establish relevance quickly and give the reader a credible reason to continue.
Check that the repair worked
Read several openings together and remove obvious repetition.
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: aI introductions begin with empty statements about a changing world. Start with the specific situation the reader recognizes.
Monitor the useful outcome
Review whether target readers understand the article's relevance and expected payoff after the opening.
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.