"He kept stalling" can be argued with. "It'll be two to three weeks" cannot.
This is a small habit that changes how seriously your record is taken, and it costs nothing.
Compare:
He kept stalling and making excuses for months.
3 March: "We're looking at two to three weeks." 1 April: "Two to three weeks." 28 April: "Should be two to three weeks out."
The first is your conclusion. Someone can disagree with it, and they will.
The second is three dated quotes, and it produces the same conclusion in the reader's own head — where it is much harder to dislodge. You did not call anyone a staller. You just showed the same promise made three times.
Let the record do the arguing. That is the whole idea.
These words feel true when you write them and weaken the page when someone else reads it:
Date. Who. What was said or done, in their words. Where you got it from.
That is the entire format. If you cannot source it, it does not go in — or it goes in clearly marked as your recollection.
Read your sentence and ask: could someone disagree with this without calling me a liar?
If yes, it is a characterization — rewrite it as the fact underneath. If no, it is a fact. Keep it.
There is a documented pattern of people using AI to make their filings sound more professional, and having them dismissed earlier than plainer ones. Polish is not the same as substance, and experienced readers separate the two very fast.
The way you sound credible is not better adjectives. It is dated facts with sources, and the restraint not to editorialize on top of them.
Include the facts that hurt you. If you missed an appointment, say so with the date. If you waited eight months to complain, say so.
A record that volunteers its own weak points reads as honest, and every other thing in it gets believed more. A record that hides them collapses entirely the moment someone finds the omission — and someone always does.