act-critical-review

name	act-critical-review
description	Tests a material proposal against alternatives, evidence gaps, risks, and falsifiers. Use when reviewing a design, plan, recommendation, or high-stakes decision.

1. State the proposal and the decision it would change.
2. Identify at least one plausible alternative or rival explanation, then test which evidence would distinguish it from the preferred view.
3. Separate verified evidence, assumptions, unknowns, and claims that need a source. Check that terminology, scope, and success criteria mean the same thing throughout the proposal.
4. Review from adversarial, deep, and implementation perspectives: identify neglected stakeholders, boundary conditions, failure modes, dependencies, and whether the proposed mechanism actually produces the claimed outcome.
5. Name the highest-impact risk, including privacy, security, cost, quality, or reversal risk when relevant.
6. Define what observation would falsify the preferred conclusion and the smallest useful next check.
7. Give a calibrated recommendation: proceed, revise, defer, or reject. Do not present a confidence level higher than the evidence supports.