grammar

Signed-off-by: Christopher Atkins <57670484+catkins-miso@users.noreply.github.com>

docs/concepts.md

@@ -81,20 +81,20 @@ Here we are concerned with three circumstances that require might require a reco
 {: .nb }
 > In no situation requiring a recourse rating does the TROLIE specification
 > constrain or dictate a course of action. However, in order to have a *working
-> definition* of recourse rating useful in documenting the specification, we
+> definition* of "recourse rating" useful in documenting the specification, we
 > examine anticipated uses of recourse ratings in the three circumstances
 > identified in the preceding paragraph.
 
 In the first case, under the assumption that the Clearinghouse Provider will
-receive the rating, it is anticipated that the Ratings Provider send an
+receive the rating, it is anticipated that the Ratings Provider shall send an
 appropriate recourse rating, e.g., the effective seasonal rating, when the
 Ratings Provider cannot determine an AAR.
 
 The second and third cases might occur when there is a communication outage or
 when the rating proposed by the Ratings Provider did not meet pre-coordinated
 validation criteria such as timeliness or lying within reasonability bounds.
 Regardless, in such circumstances the Clearinghouse Provider is obliged to use a
-recourse rating. Typically, the recourse rating in this circumstances is
+recourse rating. Typically, the recourse rating in these circumstances is
 anticipated to be a rating provided by the Ratings Provider separately, such as
 the effective seasonal rating, a verbal override, or even a previously
 forecasted rating.