B1 · Module 04 · Class 15 — Reading Between the Lines

Arturo Merino Benítez Airport → Las Condes, Santiago de Chile

The flight from Bogotá takes four hours. Marco spends most of it reading Santiago's briefing notes from week one and comparing them with his own.

His notes are longer. More detailed. But Santiago's are sharper. One paragraph catches his attention:

"The assets being assessed include three northern corridor routes generating an average of 22,000 vehicles per day. The regulatory body responsible for final approval — the agency to which all foreign investment applications must be submitted — is expected to revise its procedures before year end."

Marco reads it twice. He counts: two participial phrases. One preposition-fronted relative clause. All in four lines. No "who" or "which" in sight.

"How do you make sentences that dense without losing clarity?" he asks.

Santiago looks up from his laptop. "Practice. And knowing when not to use a full relative clause. Sometimes a participle does the job faster — and sounds more authoritative."

participial phrase

/pɑːˈtɪsɪpɪəl freɪz/

A phrase built from a participle (verb-ing or verb-ed) that modifies a noun — a reduced relative clause

fronted

/ˈfrʌntɪd/

Moved to the beginning of a clause; preposition-fronted means the preposition comes before the relative pronoun

density

/ˈdensɪti/

The amount of information packed into a short amount of text; high-density prose is concise and precise

authoritative

/ɔːˈθɒrɪtətɪv/

Confident, credible, and clearly coming from a position of knowledge or expertise

compress

/kəmˈpres/

To make something shorter while keeping the same meaning; to reduce without losing content

stock exchange

/stɒk ɪksˈtʃeɪndʒ/

The market where shares of publicly listed companies are bought and sold

domestic operator

/dəˈmestɪk ˈɒpəreɪtə/

A company that operates within its own country, as opposed to a foreign or multinational firm

background briefing

/ˈbækɡraʊnd ˈbriːfɪŋ/

An informal, off-the-record meeting to share information without formal attribution

cross-border

/ˌkrɒs ˈbɔːdə/

Involving two or more countries; describes capital, transactions, or regulations that cross national lines

constitutional reform

/ˌkɒnstɪˈtjuːʃənəl rɪˈfɔːm/

A significant change to the fundamental laws of a country, often requiring a national vote or referendum

How to Reduce

ACTIVE (who/which + verb-ing)  →  remove "who/which" → keep verb-ing

  "the director who oversees concessions"  →  "the director overseeing concessions"

  "the team that is managing the project"  →  "the team managing the project"

PASSIVE (who/which + is/was + past participle)  →  remove "who/which is/was" → keep past participle

  "the assets which are being assessed"  →  "the assets being assessed"

  "the report that was submitted in January"  →  "the report submitted in January"

STATE (who/which + is + adjective/noun)  →  use appositive noun phrase

  "Rodrigo Méndez, who is the director of concessions"  →  "Rodrigo Méndez, director of concessions,"

Full relative clause

Reduced (participial) form

"the analyst who is reviewing the data"

"the analyst reviewing the data"

"the company which is listed on the exchange"

"the company listed on the exchange"

"the framework that was introduced in 2019"

"the framework introduced in 2019"

"the risks that are associated with this structure"

"the risks associated with this structure"

"the team that will manage Phase 3"

→ cannot reduce future: keep "that will manage"

"the routes which carry 22,000 vehicles per day"

"the routes carrying 22,000 vehicles per day"

"the bill that is currently under review"

"the bill currently under review"

"the findings which were flagged in week one"

"the findings flagged in week one"

When NOT to reduce

•  Future tense: "the team that will lead Phase 3" — cannot reduce; there is no present/past participle for future.

•  Non-defining + clause-referring which: "Costs rose, which suggests…" — cannot reduce.

•  When the participle would cause ambiguity: prefer the full clause.

•  Spoken English: reduced clauses are formal; in conversation, full clauses sound more natural.

Informal (preposition at end)

Formal (preposition fronted)

"the company that we work for"

"the company for which we work"

"the team that the report was written by"

"the team by whom the report was written"

"the sector that we are investing in"

"the sector in which we are investing"

"the criteria that the assets are assessed against"

"the criteria against which the assets are assessed"

"the agency that applications must be submitted to"

"the agency to which applications must be submitted"

"the framework that the new rules are based on"

"the framework on which the new rules are based"

"the risk that the fund is exposed to"

"the risk to which the fund is exposed"

"the period that the concession was valid for"

"the period for which the concession was valid"

Whom — Use with Prepositions for People

In formal written English, "whom" replaces "who" when it is the object of a preposition.

  INFORMAL:  "the director that we interviewed"   (object, can drop "that")

  FORMAL:    "the director whom we interviewed"   (object, formal)

  MOST FORMAL:  "the director with whom we met"  (preposition fronted + whom)

In everyday speech, "whom" sounds overly formal. Use it in reports, proposals, and legal documents.

Phrasal Verbs

zoom in on  —  to focus attention closely on a specific detail or issue

"Marco zoomed in on the discrepancy between the two datasets and found it traced back to different base years."

pin down  —  to get a clear, specific answer or commitment from someone

"It took three follow-up questions to pin down the exact approval timeline."

draw out  —  to encourage someone to share more information, especially when they are reluctant

"Santiago was skilled at drawing out the concerns that interviewees were hesitant to state directly."

ALTIUS CONSULTING GROUP — PHASE 2 FIELDWORK

Field Report — Santiago de Chile  |  Week 2

Prepared by: Marco Peña  |  Reviewed by: Santiago Reyes

─────────────────────────────────────────────────

OVERVIEW

Six interviews were conducted across three days in Santiago de Chile.

The stakeholders interviewed represent the full range of actors relevant

to Vantage's proposed infrastructure exposure: operators, regulators,

and independent advisors active in the Chilean market.

TIER 1 — OPERATORS

Isabel Fuentes, Director of Project Finance at Infraestruct Chile, was

the most significant contact identified during the week. Infraestruct Chile

is the largest domestic operator of road concessions currently listed on

the Santiago Stock Exchange. The concessions managed by Fuentes's division

account for approximately 60% of the group's total revenue.

The investment structure proposed by Altius was received with interest.

Fuentes noted that the financial instrument on which the structure is based

is already used in three comparable transactions currently operating in

the Chilean market, which confirms that the legal framework is in place.

TIER 2 — REGULATORY CONTACTS

Two officials from the national infrastructure regulator — the agency

to which all foreign investment proposals must be formally submitted —

agreed to a background briefing. The regulatory framework introduced in

2021 remains in force, though a working group established last year is

currently reviewing procedures affecting cross-border capital flows.

RISK FLAG

The pending review, combined with constitutional reform discussions

referenced by interviewees across both markets, represents a risk to which

the Phase 2 timeline may be exposed. This is consistent with the regulatory

risk flagged in the original Vantage proposal.

Marco Peña  |  Altius Consulting Group  |  May 2026