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. ## Separate constraints from opinions before weighing anything Some feedback is not a vote — it is a claim about the world: "legal requires the disclosure above the fold," "this must match the pattern shipping in Q3," "that component is deprecated." Constraints do not compete with user evidence; they bound the decision space the evidence gets weighed inside. Pull them out first and verify rather than weigh: a confirmed constraint frames the decision, a claimed-but-unverifiable one gets named as an open verification with an owner, and a preference dressed as a constraint ("we can't ship anything this dense" from taste, not fact) goes back in the pile as opinion. Filing a real constraint under dissents is how a synthesis gets ignored by everyone who knows the constraint is real — and remember that a senior reviewer's flat objection is sometimes a constraint with the claim left unstated: when a comment smells like context rather than taste, ask what is behind it before you rank it. ## Cluster, then weigh Cluster the remaining feedback into distinct issues. Then weigh each issue by signal strength, in this order: direct user evidence beats everything on questions user behavior can answer, independent convergence (multiple reviewers raising the same issue separately) beats a single voice, domain r