No-Pre-Judging Reviewer Dispatch
Give reviewers neutral evidence and scope without prescribing their verdict.
These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.
Use case
A plan duplicates logic at two callers and the coordinator believes it justified, but independent review is needed. Teaching revision-a, plan and report are available for spec/quality checks without suppressing duplication in advance.
Mechanism
Provide fixed candidate, complete requirements, true constraints and evidence. Justifications remain claims, not verdicts. Permit any supported scoped finding and zero findings. Do not force defects, severity caps or preferred conclusions; adjudicate afterward from spec/evidence.
Bad example
Review revision-a but do not flag planned duplication; it can be at most Minor. I think everything else is correct.
Good example
Independently inspect teaching revision-a against requirements/quality. Read plan/report and treat rationales as claims. Report supported duplication/interface/other scoped issues or zero findings, with trigger/impact/location/actual severity. Include true constraints/counterevidence without author-preferred suppression, then record disputed dispositions.
Why the change matters
Dispatch cues can turn review into self-grading. Neutral evidence retains facts without making the desired conclusion a condition.
Observable expectation
Inspect no do-not-flag/at-most-Minor cues. An illustrative synchronization defect remains despite being plan-mandated.
Neutrality includes known counterevidence rather than hiding it. No real review is run.
Limits
Reviews can still err; neutrality guarantees no correctness. Scope can be legitimately bounded and outside findings recorded separately, without suppressing real issues to avoid repair.