Chapter 3 · Lesson 1
Critique Before You Rewrite
Diagnose why an answer is weak before asking AI to generate another version.
You keep asking AI to “make it better”, but each new version changes the wording without fixing the real problem.
Name the failure precisely
Separate factual, structural, tonal, and strategic problems. An answer can be accurate but poorly prioritised, clear but unsupported, or polished but aimed at the wrong audience. Different failures require different corrections.
Evaluate against explicit criteria
Give the model a short review rubric such as accuracy, relevance, evidence, clarity, and actionability. Ask it to identify the weakest area and cite the part of the draft that caused the judgment. You still decide whether the critique is right.
Revise only after diagnosis
Once the problem is clear, request a focused revision and preserve what already works. This prevents a full rewrite from introducing new errors or discarding useful details merely because one paragraph was weak.
Build the mental model
Revision improves when critique identifies the failure, evidence, and smallest useful change.
Use a fixed review sequence
Check factual support first, then task relevance, structure, clarity, and tone. Fixing style before evidence can make a weak answer more persuasive without making it more correct.
Require evidence for the critique
Ask the reviewer to quote or identify the passage behind each finding. This makes vague criticism challengeable and prevents a model from inventing problems.
A proposal sounds polished but does not make a decision easy.
Make this proposal stronger and more convincing.
Do not rewrite yet. Review the proposal in this order: factual support, relevance to the decision, prioritisation, and clarity. For each issue, quote the passage, explain the consequence, and propose the smallest correction. Then revise only the two highest-impact issues while preserving supported content.
The workflow separates diagnosis from generation, orders review by consequence, and limits revision so good material is not casually replaced.
A practical five-line critique
For each issue record: criterion, evidence from the draft, consequence for the reader, proposed correction, and whether a person must verify it.
If reviewers disagree, inspect the criterion before rewriting. The disagreement may reveal that “good” was never defined for the task.
Diagnose a draft you already have
Choose three review criteria, identify evidence for the weakest one, and request one bounded revision.
Review for [criteria]. Quote the evidence. Name the consequence. Recommend the smallest correction. Do not rewrite until I confirm.prompt choice
Which follow-up is most likely to improve a weak proposal?
Compare the prompts closely. Look for useful context, constraints, and a clear output.
Diagnose the failure before generating the next version.