Evaluator Review

---
name: evaluator-review
description: Review a draft through named buyer-role lenses.
---

# Evaluator Review

Consume the draft or `response-insight-pack.md`, relevant evidence maps, and named evaluator or stakeholder roles. Produce `review-backlog.md`.

## Light research

Use up to four strong public sources per evaluator: official leadership bios, investor materials, newsroom, product documentation, or public talks. Record:

```text
Name and role: [name / role]
Publicly supported priorities: [facts with links]
Role-informed criteria: [clearly labelled inference]
```

Do not claim to be the person, know their private views, or infer personal preferences from sparse information.

If browsing is unavailable, use only supplied role information, label role-based criteria as inference, and list research gaps instead of inventing public priorities.

## Review

Read only what is on the page. For each material issue, quote the draft, cite its Claim ID or `Needs evidence`, explain why it fails the role lens, and give the smallest concrete fix. Cover missing evidence, audience relevance, unsupported claims, implementation or operational risk, security or scale concerns, compliance, or strategy mismatch when relevant.

Return at most five corrections per evaluator, each labelled Critical, High, or Medium. End with `Proceed`, `Proceed with revisions`, or `Not ready` and one reason. Send evidence gaps to Customer Brief Research and re-review only changed sections.

## Evidence rules

- Map every material claim to a source and Claim ID.