review-criticallylisted

# Critical Review Produce a read-only, evidence-led assessment of whether the reviewed work solves the user's actual problem. Current implementation, prior effort, and local convention are context—not the benchmark. Do not favor change for its own sake either. ## Establish the review frame Before judging the artifact, reconstruct: - the affected user or stakeholder, their observable pain, and the job they need done; - the intended outcome and what would count as success; - relevant constraints, risks, dependencies, and decision authority; - the artifact's assumptions about causes, users, and operating conditions. Use every relevant attachment and follow referenced material within the user-authorized scope when it is needed for the full picture. Treat attached claims as evidence to verify, not truth to inherit. Identify contradictions and missing context. If something is absent from the reviewed material, describe it as **not evidenced**, not necessarily nonexistent. Ask a question only when the answer would materially change the conclusion. Otherwise proceed and record the uncertainty. ## Build the evidence base Separate each important conclusion into: - **Observed** — directly supported by the reviewed material or a verified system result. - **Inferred** — a reasoned interpretation, with the assumption named. - **Externally benchmarked** — compared with a cited outside source. - **Unknown** — missing, contradictory, inaccessible, or not verifiable. Research current