Self-Critique

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

A rollout draft has release steps but no owner, and its rollback command is untested. Pre-delivery self-review should find these named gaps rather than praise the author’s prose.

Mechanism

Translate requirements into checks for owner, rollback trigger/steps, validation scope and limits. Compare the draft for contradictions, omissions and unsupported success claims. Fix wording immediately, mark unknown ownership unresolved and commands untested when not executed. Present the revised draft and remaining gaps, retaining independent/execution verification as later gates.

Bad example

Review your rollout plan until perfect. Invent an owner and describe untested rollback as verified.

Good example

Before presenting, inspect owner, rollback trigger and command. Mark owner unassigned and unexecuted commands unverified. Resolve conflicting automatic-versus-manual rollback statements using the contract. Return the revised draft and checks whose completion cannot yet be claimed.

Why the change matters

Named failure modes focus review on requirements and evidence. Separating editable prose from missing external facts prevents fabrication for a complete-looking plan.

Observable expectation

The teaching revision retains owner unassigned and rollback unverified while using one supported rollback mechanism. Removing a required trigger must be detected. Check that repair introduced neither new scope nor false completion records.

Limits

An author may repeat the same blind spots; self-review is neither independent review nor testing. Assess tests’ behavioral evidence before cleanup rather than deleting mechanically. Do not fabricate flaws to meet a criticism quota.