When do text embeddings work as inputs to empirical analysis? Their use rests on an assumption: that we can trade text for its low-dimensional embedding, and lose little in doing so. I make that assumption precise under a generative model in which documents are mixtures of latent topics. I study two uses---clustering units in embedding space and controlling for high-dimensional text. A cluster of embeddings is a set of documents with similar topic mixtures; controlling for the embedding is equivalent to controlling for the topic mixture, so validity reduces to whether that mixture captures the confounding. In an application to 363 U.S. metropolitan areas, embedding-based clusters of LLM-generated economic descriptions recover interpretable economic archetypes and separate local employment dynamics more sharply than clustering on model residuals, or on a curated set of industry and demographic covariates.
Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) are widely used readability scores for English computed from the same two document statistics, yet their stability on long documents need not imply invariance to lexical composition. Surprisingly, under a topic model with an explicit sentence-boundary token, both scores converge almost surely to deterministic functions of the document topic distribution through just two scalar rates: in the long-text limit, all score variation is mediated by topical composition rather than any residual readability signal. The theory covers both formulae, while the experiments evaluate FKGL. In a fixed admixture with rank[1, q, s] = 3, fibres through interior topic vectors are locally (K-3)-dimensional, whereas regular iso-score level sets are locally (K-2)-dimensional and curved. In out-of-fold evaluation on two balanced corpora, Brown and the written BNC, a topic vector inferred from one document half's content words predicts the other half's FKGL at r = 0.779 and 0.884, respectively. On Brown, adding the topic prediction to genre and mean content-word syllable count yields $ΔR^2$ = 0.002, with a confidence interval spanning zero; on the BNC, the corresponding split-half increment is 0.024, positive in four of five K = 100 fits (median 0.021). Because inferred topics may also absorb genre, register, and style, we do not interpret these results as evidence about human readability or causal effects.