Peer Review Loop
Use When
- Use before high-stakes publication, decisions, investment recommendations, policy advice, due diligence, or intelligence judgments.
- Use when the analysis is consensual, contested, surprising, or based on limited sources.
- Use after draft synthesis and before final executive communication.
Do Not Use When
- The task is low-stakes formatting or mechanical conversion.
- The output has no claims or recommendations.
Peer Review Loop Required Context
- Draft analysis, source manifest, claim graph, assumptions, conclusions, and intended audience.
- Review mandate: source audit, methods audit, red team, decision review, or prose review.
Peer Review Loop Core Method Notes
- Assign review mode and reviewer independence.
- Reconstruct the argument from the draft.
- Audit sources and claim links.
- Challenge assumptions, methods, and excluded alternatives.
- Write a dissent or red-team memo when warranted.
- Produce a revision disposition log.
- Re-run verification on changed claims.
Quality Standards
- Review attacks the argument, not the prose first.
- Dissent is preserved until resolved.
- Every accepted change has a reason.
- Every rejected challenge has a reason.
Peer Review Loop Existing Failure Notes
- Review as grammar polishing.
- Devil's advocacy with no power to change the output.
- Reviewer sees only the conclusion, not the evidence.
- Dissent deleted without disposition.
Peer Review Loop Core Deliverables
- Review memo.
- Red-team or devil's advocate memo.
- Revision disposition log.
- Residual-risk note.
Evidence Produced
| Category |
Artifact |
Format |
Example |
| Correctness |
Review memo |
Markdown |
Findings, severity, evidence |
| Release evidence |
Disposition log |
Markdown table |
Challenge, decision, reason |
References
- Load
references/review-protocol.md for review modes and disposition.
Inputs
| Artefact |
Source or provider |
Requirement |
If absent |
| Frozen review candidate, claims, sources, and method notes |
authoring workflow |
required |
Return a review-readiness gap list if missing |
Peer Review Loop Permission Notes
Read and source-search access are required, and peer review defaults to read-only. Remediation edits or release actions need explicit authority separate from the review mandate.
Degraded mode
When sources, models, or methods cannot be inspected, issue a qualified review with those checks marked unassessed; do not close or downgrade the affected risk.
Decision rules
| Choice |
Action |
Failure avoided |
| Finding challenges method or evidence materially |
Block release pending disposition |
Cosmetic review masks substantive error |
Outputs
| Artefact |
Consumer |
Observable acceptance condition |
| Read-only review report and disposition register |
author and release owner |
Every finding cites the artefact and records accept, revise, or reject |
Peer Review Loop Evidence Notes 1
- Record the frozen candidate, cited findings, reviewer dissent, severity, author disposition, and rerun evidence.
Worked example
A forecast with an uncited growth assumption receives a blocking finding tied to the exact model cell or paragraph and a request for source or removal.
Companion Skills
analytic-tradecraft supplies competing-hypothesis and bias checks.source-verification supplies source audit checks.critical-reasoning-and-argument supplies argument reconstruction.
Workflow
- Freeze the review candidate and define the review questions.
- Challenge sources, method, reasoning, countercases, and decision implications.
- Stop release on an unresolved material evidence or method defect.
- Record dispositions; recover by revising the artefact and rerunning the affected checks.
Capability Contract
Default to read-only review. Read and search are required; editing or publication requires explicit separate authority.
Peer Review Loop Evidence Notes 2
| Evidence |
Consumer |
Acceptance |
| Review findings and disposition register |
Author and release owner |
Every finding cites the artefact and has an accepted disposition |
Anti-Patterns
- Reviewing a moving draft. Fix: freeze and identify the candidate.
- Raising a finding without artefact evidence. Fix: cite the exact claim, cell, or method step.
- Treating style preference as a blocker. Fix: tie severity to decision risk.
- Suppressing dissent after majority agreement. Fix: record and disposition it.
- Closing a finding without rerunning the check. Fix: verify the revision.
Reference Index
1---2name: peer-review-loop3description: Use when research, analysis, forecasts, or recommendations need adversarial review, red-team challenge, devil's advocacy, source audit, method review, dissent handling, and revision disposition before release.4---56# Peer Review Loop78<!-- dual-compat-start -->910## Use When1112- Use before high-stakes publication, decisions, investment recommendations, policy advice, due diligence, or intelligence judgments.13- Use when the analysis is consensual, contested, surprising, or based on limited sources.14- Use after draft synthesis and before final executive communication.1516## Do Not Use When1718- The task is low-stakes formatting or mechanical conversion.19- The output has no claims or recommendations.202122## Peer Review Loop Required Context23- Draft analysis, source manifest, claim graph, assumptions, conclusions, and intended audience.24- Review mandate: source audit, methods audit, red team, decision review, or prose review.252627## Peer Review Loop Core Method Notes281. Assign review mode and reviewer independence.292. Reconstruct the argument from the draft.303. Audit sources and claim links.314. Challenge assumptions, methods, and excluded alternatives.325. Write a dissent or red-team memo when warranted.336. Produce a revision disposition log.347. Re-run verification on changed claims.3536## Quality Standards3738- Review attacks the argument, not the prose first.39- Dissent is preserved until resolved.40- Every accepted change has a reason.41- Every rejected challenge has a reason.424344## Peer Review Loop Existing Failure Notes45- Review as grammar polishing.46- Devil's advocacy with no power to change the output.47- Reviewer sees only the conclusion, not the evidence.48- Dissent deleted without disposition.495051## Peer Review Loop Core Deliverables52- Review memo.53- Red-team or devil's advocate memo.54- Revision disposition log.55- Residual-risk note.5657## Evidence Produced5859| Category | Artifact | Format | Example |60|---|---|---|---|61| Correctness | Review memo | Markdown | Findings, severity, evidence |62| Release evidence | Disposition log | Markdown table | Challenge, decision, reason |6364## References6566- Load `references/review-protocol.md` for review modes and disposition.6768## Inputs6970| Artefact | Source or provider | Requirement | If absent |71|---|---|---|---|72| Frozen review candidate, claims, sources, and method notes | authoring workflow | required | Return a review-readiness gap list if missing |737475## Peer Review Loop Permission Notes76Read and source-search access are required, and peer review defaults to read-only. Remediation edits or release actions need explicit authority separate from the review mandate.7778## Degraded mode7980When sources, models, or methods cannot be inspected, issue a qualified review with those checks marked unassessed; do not close or downgrade the affected risk.8182## Decision rules8384| Choice | Action | Failure avoided |85|---|---|---|86| Finding challenges method or evidence materially | Block release pending disposition | Cosmetic review masks substantive error |878889## Outputs90| Artefact | Consumer | Observable acceptance condition |91|---|---|---|92| Read-only review report and disposition register | author and release owner | Every finding cites the artefact and records accept, revise, or reject |939495## Peer Review Loop Evidence Notes 196- Record the frozen candidate, cited findings, reviewer dissent, severity, author disposition, and rerun evidence.9798## Worked example99100A forecast with an uncited growth assumption receives a blocking finding tied to the exact model cell or paragraph and a request for source or removal.101102<!-- dual-compat-end -->103104## Companion Skills105106- `analytic-tradecraft` supplies competing-hypothesis and bias checks.107- `source-verification` supplies source audit checks.108- `critical-reasoning-and-argument` supplies argument reconstruction.109110111## Workflow1121. Freeze the review candidate and define the review questions.1132. Challenge sources, method, reasoning, countercases, and decision implications.1143. Stop release on an unresolved material evidence or method defect.1154. Record dispositions; recover by revising the artefact and rerunning the affected checks.116117## Capability Contract118119Default to read-only review. Read and search are required; editing or publication requires explicit separate authority.120121122## Peer Review Loop Evidence Notes 2123| Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance |124|---|---|---|125| Review findings and disposition register | Author and release owner | Every finding cites the artefact and has an accepted disposition |126127128## Anti-Patterns129- Reviewing a moving draft. Fix: freeze and identify the candidate.130- Raising a finding without artefact evidence. Fix: cite the exact claim, cell, or method step.131- Treating style preference as a blocker. Fix: tie severity to decision risk.132- Suppressing dissent after majority agreement. Fix: record and disposition it.133- Closing a finding without rerunning the check. Fix: verify the revision.134135## Reference Index136137- [Review protocol](references/review-protocol.md)
peterbamuhigire