"Those are just three things that bryce is inefficient in. HOWEVER, I explained that there are loopholes to get around these." This is why the three things are part of the paragraph/group and the loopholes aren't; the three are what's inefficient, and the one is how to get around them. That's exactly what I thought you meant and now exactly what you say you intended. So I still hold with what I posted; the loophole sentence is better off separate from what makes Bryce inefficient. As for the rest of the article, I haven't read either version, so I can't really comment on how well or how poorly they've edited your writing. I can only say that, like art, editing can be really subjective; some editors go beyond correcting just grammar and punctuation and try to put in "better phrasing" or "more concise wording" as they see fit. If that's the case, it's a shame they didn't send you a galley proof of some kind so that you could comment on their editing decisions. If they thought they needed to edit your article to that extent, then it probably means you didn't make yourself as clear as you thought you did; but if their editing only makes your meaning even less clear, then you should at the very least have the chance to address that before the whole thing goes to print.