I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Your article is disjointed and flabbergasting. You might have done better allowing your analysis to cool for a week or so and then editing, instead of running it hot off the emotive press.
Now don’t go getting your hackles in an uproar. I’ve done the same thing many, many times. I’m just offering measured criticism.
“Your article is disjointed and flabbergasting. You might have done better allowing your analysis to cool for a week or so and then editing, instead of running it hot off the emotive press.”
Very simple. The article assumes all three are running. If that doesn’t happen, then it will be inapposite.
The analysis is based upon an assumption of facts which have not yet crystallized. Sorry if you don’t lie the prose, but it is not disjointed at all.