Critique

What we want back

Answers in writing beat a hallway take. Download a markdown note when you are done; it stays in this browser until then.

ReviewerName, shop, or a handle. Optional. Warning / watch splitIs outcome+window+indicators vs topic+bar the right cut? Where would you put something we have as a T that should be a W, or the reverse? Silence ruleStanding warnings omitted from the daily brief unless rising or imminent. Does that serve a senior reader, or does it hide the board? Estimative languageLadder is Kent / ICD 203. Confidence is separate. Any rung on the board you would refuse to carry at the stated confidence? Deniable-sabotage clustern=1 never fires; 3 in 30 days in one country or against one infrastructure class, or a government attribution. Too strict, too loose, or the wrong object? Vetted feed vs default voiceA paid Watchfloor the principal has vetted wins on judgment, wording, and what to watch. Initials cited. Facts still get official counterparts. Would you allow that hierarchy? Scored miss = retoolF1/W7: likely inside 30 days; a miss is a process failure, not within-error-bar. Is that the right incentive for an I&W shop? CoverageWhat is the board blind to that it should not be? What is on it that should not be? The 23 September briefAs a period product: too much, too little, wrong lead, wrong omission? W7 as the warning item; Mi-8 as a development — agree or not? Anything elseRules, voice, indicator quality, capability gaps, PDF appendix, log shape. Say the thing that bothered you that we did not ask.

Open mail draft

If time is short Silence rule, cluster rule, W7 as a 30-day likely, and whether the board is the right board. Four sentences on those four would already be useful.