review

An evidence-based review audits draft manuscripts by identifying core claims and evidence gaps to produce a skeptical evaluation. This process transforms informal critiques into structured review notes and actionable revision plans.

Finding evidence gaps in a research paper requires a skeptical audit of the draft to evaluate the support for core claims. The review process highlights messaging improvements and missing evidence to guide revisions.

Yes, you can use this workflow to generate a revision plan for a technical report. The audit applies to report-like outputs, producing concrete revision logs and experimentTODO lists to route next steps.

The audit process works specifically for draft-quality documents rather than finalized papers. It evaluates incomplete drafts to produce independent critiques and routing decisions for further writing or analysis campaigns.

You create an experimentTODO list from manuscript review notes by auditing the draft for evidence gaps and unsupported claims. The resulting structured output directs the necessary analysis campaigns to validate the paper.