10% is "getting impacted". I find it ridiculous when people use language like this. Especially a CEO. Have some courage and say the thing out loud. He who must not be named has a name, it's Voldemort.
Fine, I concede that point and agree, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. Everyone certainly knows exactly what he's talking about - it's not like he's being ambiguous.
I believe that clear, concise communication should live at the top of every message. Thoughts, feelings, explanations; that stuff goes down below.
"Today, I have to announce unpleasant news: in the coming days, Klarna will be downsizing our workforce. If you are impacted, you will receive a meeting request shortly to discuss specifics for your separation.
Even though I've been a CEO for BLAH and this is HARD and BLAH BLAH and you're forever my KLARNA HOMIES and this WAS NOT my fault, BLAH…"
The letter is sent to employees, get impacted is explicit enough for the targeted audience.
Do not conflate perception gap and intended ambiguity.
No matter how through presented, message can get lost for anyone because of non-overlapping background in understanding. Neither the author nor the readers should feel negatively about that.