More formal way of saying "sloppy"?

Question

I am writing a formal document. It is a petition to appeal an administrative law decision. The decision is jam-packed full of sloppy mistakes of every kind imaginable. (The guy who wrote it couldn't even manage to spell the name of my town correctly in the title of the document.) I list all the errors and inaccuracies in my appeal petition, with specific references to pages in the hearing transcript and exhibits. But I want to preface the list with something that means the following:

A number of the problems noted might seem rather insignificant, but I will list them all, to show the review officer how incredibly sloppy the decision is. OR: what a slapdash job the hearing officer did in analyzing the case and writing up the decision.

Only I can't say "incredibly sloppy", I need more formal language. I need a more subtle way of saying sloppy.

I don't mind making adjustments in my sample sentence to accommodate a different part of speech or whatever.

Note, the following question is somewhat related but doesn't. A word for not paying attention to detail, causing sloppiness.

One idea:

A number of the problems noted might seem rather insignificant, but I will list them all, to show the review officer the shocking lack of care taken in analyzing the case and documenting the decision.

Another idea:

The hearing officer's slapdash [or: haphazard] analysis and write-up resulted in erroneous references and errors of fact that are too numerous to list in the space allowed. I will only be able to provide corrections for a portion.

Answer 1

You could describe the situation thusly:

This decision is misguided because it's based on an inaccurate report. The report is littered with errors which grossly misrepresent the true state of matters.

No need to blame the officer directly, simply emphasizing the poor quality of the report will sufficiently imply blame without any unprofessional accusations.

Answer 2

Sometimes, simplicity is the best approach.

The problems noted might seem rather insignificant, but I will list them all, to show the review officer how strewn with innumerable errors the decision is.

For a harsher sounding approach

The problems noted may appear insignificant to an outsider, but in order to clarify my dismay at the decision, the most significant and shoddiest errors will be listed.

P.S the past participle of strew is also strewed

P.P.S Deleted previous second suggestion, see edit history, in light of recent edits made by the OP.

Answer 3

A word to consider is hasty. One, it offers to account for the careless surface errors allowed through by the neglect of sentence-level editing and revision, while at the same time seeming generously to excuse them—almost—since being overly busy is a badge of honor in today’s American office culture. Two, it suggests that the decision expressed under all those errors was itself not properly thought through. Inferring the second from the first would seem to be precisely the leap you would wish for your reader to make, and this term provides a kind of a stepping-stone between them.

You can of course experiment with intensifiers, qualifiers/hedges, or both, as in somewhat over-hasty, till you hit the tone best suited, not for the venting of your feelings, but for the winning over of your reader.

Answer 4

I think you're chasing a synonym when you really need a larger edit to make the passage sound more neutral in general. After that, neutral terms and phrases fit right in.

Your first idea sounds right when pared down a bit:

A number of tSome of the problems noted might seem rather insignificant individually, but I will list them all together, show the review officer the shocking lack of care taken in analyzing the case and documenting the decision.

And more readable:

Some of the problems noted might seem insignificant individually, but all together, show the lack of care taken in analyzing the case and documenting the decision.

Answer 5

How about "not rigorous". For fields where precision is paramount, lack of rigor is bad.

You could say the "the decision process lacked rigor" or similar.

Answer 6

How about inattention to detail?

Your example, reworded:

A number of the problems noted might seem rather insignificant, but I will list them all, to demonstrate the administrative law judge's inattention to detail in analyzing the case and writing up the decision.

Bottom line: The judge's inattention to detail raises serious questions about the thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and dedication to justice of his (or her) decision. If he (or she) doesn't care enough about the case to ensure that basic facts and their presentation are correct, how can we have any confidence in his (or her) ultimate decision?

Answer 7

I was thinking "untidy" but in this context I agree with those above who say "careless".

This is based on this definition of "careless": "not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors." (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+careless).

You explicitly mention his errors, and sloppiness can be interpreted as "not giving sufficient attention" to his task, in this case the administrative decision.

The definitions for careless at Dictionary.com reinforce the appropriateness of this word:

1. not paying enough attention to what one does:
2. not exact, accurate, or thorough:
3. done or said heedlessly or negligently; unconsidered:
4. not caring or troubling; having no care or concern; unconcerned (usually followed by of, about, or in)

Answer 8

The word "lackadaisical" is defined by oxforddictionaries.com as

Lacking enthusiasm and determination; carelessly lazy

Answer 9

If I wanted to say that the writer of the report had failed to perform his required duties appropriately and produced a sub-par report, I might say it was negligent of him. This is not a neutral word, but it is a formal one, and is in fact a legal term.

Answer 10

I am not sure if there is a neutral synonym of sloppy, partly because sloppy implies bad and partly because, well, neutrality can be subjective - your choicest euphemism may still offend the recipient. In any case, I believe it should be amply clear that you are only questioning the documentation and not the decision itself (as that seems to be your requirement).
Here comes my suggestion: ill documented

... but I will list them all, to show the review officer how ill documented the decision is.

ODO:

ill ADVERB

1 [usually in combination] Badly, wrongly, or imperfectly:

‘the street is dominated by ill-lit shops’

‘This question is rather abstract, but it serves to demonstrate how ill defined ‘harmful to minors’ may be.’

Answer 11

The decision is perfunctory:

perfunctory -

1. performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial
2. lacking interest, care, or enthusiasm; indifferent or apathetic

(dictionary.com)

This is of particular use to describe how one performs their duties.

As an aside, if you want idioms for how the job was performed, the question {Alternative idiom to "phone it in"} has several.

Answer 12

You should step back and tell everyone the idea you are trying to get across. It looks like you're trying to say the officer failed to meet your expectations in the effort they applied.

There are multiple ways to go about this. In such formal writing, you probably need to come across strongly but in a courteous way. Don't try to categorise the officer, only:

• their actions,
• your perceptions of your actions,
• your perception of their obligations, and
• your expectations.

You're already on track "..the decision is", highlighting their actions.

If there is an official declaration or procedure, you can reference that. "The officer failed to meet the expectations of your charter for a full investigation".

Failing that, you probably need to retreat to your expectations.

With the adjusted perspective, you can use stronger words, which better convey the emotion of your problem.

It's seems like this is in the domain of judgement, there are specific words that should be used.

• Unfair
• Biased
• Unjust
• Lacking prudence
• Sham
• all a show
• etc.

Further words to consider (beyond my focused reasoning above):

• lazy
• incompetent
• heartless
• incomplete
• not thorough enough
• dismissive

Answer 13

"uncombed and littered with mistakes"

In this you describing the problem that someone has created through their negligence and taking away the judgmental sting associated with the word sloppy...

To my mind your right in changing it as Sloppy is both descriptive of the work and the person, your likely to get better gains out of them if you narrow it to something that parses the difference and places emphasis on what they have done or in this case not done, than leaving it open to something that could be read as descriptive of them as a person.

On second thoughts though a one word answer as suggested above in the comments

careless / negligent

Answer 14

The complainer should not mention the hearing officer’s “slapdash job” of adjudicating the case. That determination falls to a higher-level authority than the hearing officer. But “writing up the decision” is another matter. I would write: “The hearing officer failed to meet communication expectations that are required in the service of the law. Evidentiary instances are: … (your examples)”.