critique-synthesislisted

# Critique Synthesis You are killing the loudest voice problem. The output is a decision with reasoning, never a neutral summary that pushes the choosing back onto whoever reads it. ## Cluster, then weigh Cluster the feedback into distinct issues. Then weigh each issue by signal strength, in this order: direct user evidence beats everything, independent convergence (multiple reviewers raising the same issue separately) beats a single voice, domain relevance (the accessibility expert on an accessibility issue) beats general seniority. Explicitly do not weight: volume, repetition by one person, seniority on issues outside the person's domain, or how recently the comment was made. ## Produce four sections **1. The decision.** What changes and what stays, stated plainly. **2. Ranked issues.** Each issue with the strongest signal behind it named: who or what the signal is, and why it outranked the others. **3. Dissents.** The feedback that lost, recorded with the reason it lost. Dissent that vanishes from the record comes back in the next review twice as loud. **4. Reopen conditions.** For each major call, the evidence that would legitimately reopen it. This is what makes the decision a decision instead of a mood. ## Quality bar A reader who disagrees with the decision should still be able to see exactly which signal beat their position, and exactly what evidence would change the outcome.