Technical documentation—especially troubleshooting guides—must let contributors go from symptom to reproducible diagnosis with minimal guesswork.

Apply these rules:

1. Be precise about requirements vs local setup: state the minimum supported versions/constraints separately from “works locally” details.
2. Anchor steps to the actual workflow/tools: link directly to the CLI action that saves the evidence (e.g., “Save report?”) and document the default location/structure where outputs are written (e.g., reports/<ticker>_<timestamp>/).
3. Make the workflow traceable: when you claim a step, explicitly connect it to a failure pattern (“what to inspect first”), so readers can find the earliest wrong stage quickly.

Example structure to follow:

• Quick triage
  • Confirm inputs (exact identifiers, date window)
  • “Save report?” via CLI → inspect reports/<ticker>_<timestamp>/
• Investigation
  • Choose the matching failure pattern from a table
  • For that pattern, list the first concrete checks (tool call args, time windows, exchange-qualified tickers, etc.)

Result: docs become operational (tool/paths-driven), deterministic (pattern → first inspection), and clear about constraints (compatibility vs local environment).