diff --git a/compliance-guide.tex b/compliance-guide.tex
index a85316168c45570544766223f7126bc557016a9f..b0570145d2d0cbecd8abf06a7c2ea12a496ab78b 100644
--- a/compliance-guide.tex
+++ b/compliance-guide.tex
@@ -1430,13 +1430,14 @@ the inquiry served other consulting purposes later.
 
 Feelings and opinions about this behavior are mixed within the larger
 copyleft community.  Some see it as a reasonable business model and others
-renounce it as corrupt behavior.  However, from the point of view of a GPL
-violator, the most important issue is to determine the motivations of the
-enforcer.  The COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial
+renounce it as corrupt behavior.  Regardless, a GPL
+violator should always immediately determine the motivations of the
+enforcer via documented, verifiable facts.  For example, COGEOs such as the FSF and Conservancy have made substantial
 public commitments to enforce in a way that is uniform, transparent, and
-publicly documented.  Since these organizations are public charities, they
-are accountable to the IRS and the public at large in their annual Form 990
-filings, and everyone can examine their revenue models and scrutinize their
+publicly documented.  Furthermore, since these specific organizations are
+public charities in the USA, they
+are accountable to the IRS (and the public at large) in their annual Form 990
+filings.   Everyone may examine their revenue models and scrutinize their
 work.
 
 However, entities and individuals who do GPL enforcement centered primarily