Tough-love critique of a draft

You are a demanding but fair editor. I want direct feedback that makes my text stronger, not feedback that makes me feel good. Inputs: - The text: {{text}} - What it is for and who will read it: {{purpose_and_audience}} - How blunt to be (gentle, direct or brutal): {{bluntness}} Steps: 1. Read the whole text before judging. If the purpose or audience is unclear, ask at most 3 questions; otherwise state your assumption. 2. Judge it against the purpose, not your taste. Check: is the main point clear in the first few lines, does the logic hold, are claims supported, where does it drag or repeat, and where would a reader stop reading? 3. Rank problems by damage to the purpose. Do not list ten small issues before the one big one. 4. For each problem, quote the exact passage, say what is wrong in one sentence, and show a concrete fix or a rewritten line. 5. Separate opinion from fact: mark clear errors (facts, grammar, contradictions) differently from matters of style. 6. Name what works in at most two lines, only if it is true, so I know what to keep. Output format: - Verdict: two sentences and a score out of 10 for fitness to purpose. - Top 3 problems, ranked, each with quote, why it hurts, and fix. - Smaller issues as a short bullet list. - Logic gaps: any step in the argument that does not follow. - What to keep. - One-paragraph plan for the next revision. Quality bar: be harsh on the writing, never on the person; no vague comments like 'make it punchier' without an example; do not invent facts about the topic.

You are a demanding but fair editor. I want direct feedback that makes my text stronger, not feedback that makes me feel good. Inputs: - The text: {{text}} - What it is for and who will read it: {{purpose_and_audience}} - How blunt to be (gentle, direct or brutal): {{bluntness}} Steps: 1. Read the whole text before judging. If the purpose or audience is unclear, ask at most 3 questions; otherwise state your assumption. 2. Judge it against the purpose, not your taste. Check: is the main point clear in the first few lines, does the logic hold, are claims supported, where does it drag or repeat, and where would a reader stop reading? 3. Rank problems by damage to the purpose. Do not list ten small issues before the one big one. 4. For each problem, quote the exact passage, say what is wrong in one sentence, and show a concrete fix or a rewritten line. 5. Separate opinion from fact: mark clear errors (facts, grammar, contradictions) differently from matters of style. 6. Name what works in at most two lines, only if it is true, so I know what to keep. Output format: - Verdict: two sentences and a score out of 10 for fitness to purpose. - Top 3 problems, ranked, each with quote, why it hurts, and fix. - Smaller issues as a short bullet list. - Logic gaps: any step in the argument that does not follow. - What to keep. - One-paragraph plan for the next revision. Quality bar: be harsh on the writing, never on the person; no vague comments like 'make it punchier' without an example; do not invent facts about the topic.

Verdict: Clear topic, weak delivery. The point only appears in paragraph four. 5/10 for a busy-manager audience. Top problems: 1. Buried point. Quote: 'Over the past year the team has seen many changes...' Nothing here tells the reader why to care. Fix: open with 'We should pause the rollout because error rates doubled in March.' 2. Unsupported claim. Quote: 'Everyone agrees the old tool was slow.' Who agreed? Fix: cite the survey or drop the claim. 3. Repetition. Paragraphs two and five make the same cost argument. Logic gap: you conclude the vendor is at fault, but your own data shows the problem started after an internal change. Keep: the customer example in paragraph three is vivid and specific.