HCD.24:4.4 - Have the reviewer make and explain the judgement

The reviewer identifies the criterion, locates the relevant passage or action and connects its feature to the judgement. A useful comment then tells the author what can be done: verify a condition, change an inference, add a missing comparison, narrow a claim or retain an effective choice. It need not dictate an entire replacement solution.

For example, “this conclusion is weak” gives neither the ground nor the next move. “The pressure is unchanged within the stated uncertainty, whereas this resistance explanation predicts an increase under your constant-efficiency assumption; revise the causal conclusion or supply a supported different account” identifies the discrepancy and a bounded action. The subject assumptions must actually be available.

If AI assists with locating passages, language or a possible counterexample, keep the human’s evaluation contribution visible. Decide beforehand which operation the learner must perform, and preserve their initial judgement when that evidence matters. A subsequent tool suggestion can support revision. Interpret the corrected judgement under the help actually used. Tool output used only to supply a competent service has a different learning claim.