I asked a question similar to this before and did not receive a suitable answer so I am going to try again.
In the business world where people often create unnecessarily complicated and poorly phrased sentences in an effort to avoid common ways of phrasing things to sound more formal, sentences like the following seem common:
Reviewing the work plan, the verbiage needs to be reworded.
Whenever I encounter such a phrase, I rewrite it to remove the leading participial phrase which I was taught is not grammatical (not to mention how horrible it sounds to my ears). I was taught that if the introductory participial phrase does not have a stated word that it can modify, it is not acceptable and called a "dangling modifier". In such sentences, the modifier is the unstated person who is implied to have reviewed the work plan.
Someone replied to my previous question that it is acceptable and called a "non-finite gerund-participial clause functioning as a supplementary adjunct". I have never heard of a supplementary adjunct and can't find anything about it. Does anyone happen to know if such phrases are acceptable in formal English.
I want to stress, I am not looking for ways to rephrase the sentence to remove ambiguity. I am explicitly interested in the grammaticallity of it as stated and if it sounds foolish to use that phraseology.