Reviewing other people’s work

The larger half of the job, and the part most portfolios do not show.

The test for a note: could someone act on it without asking you a question? If they have to come back for clarification, the note failed — and at volume, every clarifying conversation is a week that does not ship.

Critic or editor

Critic	Editor
“Make this punchier.”	“W11 Thu social[1] repeats Tuesday’s hook. Replace with the scheduling angle from the week’s intent.”
“Feels off-brand.”	“‘Act now’ is on the banned list. The intent is transparency over urgency — say when the slot is, not that it is going.”
“I’d rewrite this.”	“Cut the second sentence. The first already makes the argument.”

The right-hand column names the cell, the problem, and the replacement. Three parts. A note missing any of them is an opinion.

What you are reviewing against

The rails — and the gate has already checked those. If you are only catching banned words, the machine did not need you.
The week’s intent — does this cell serve what the week is for? This is the one nothing can check but you.
Repetition — across the week, and against the weeks either side of it.
Native fit — is this written for the surface it is going to, or is it a social post wearing an email’s clothes?

You will also be reviewed. Your counterpart reads your work the same way, and on elimination night they say what they found — not asked to be kind, asked to be accurate. Taking a note well is part of the seat.