# Reconcile feedback from three readers: checklist

Compare three readers' actual notes on a draft, find agreements and conflicts, and turn them into a revision plan without pretending that every comment can be followed at once.

## Before you start

- [ ] Have ready: Draft under review
  Paste the draft as all three people saw it. This is the text their comments should refer to.
- [ ] Have ready: Three readers' notes
  Give each reader a label and paste their actual comments. If a reader made no comment on a point, do not invent one.
- [ ] Have ready: What the draft must do
  Name the intended reader and the decision or action this draft supports.

## Step 1: Keep each reader's words separate

- [ ] Quote each distinct note and identify the part of the draft it concerns.
- [ ] You have: Each actual comment tied to its reader and a draft part.
- [ ] Check: Every quote in the Comment (quote) column appears word for word in the three readers' notes.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it.

## Step 2: Find agreements and conflicts

- [ ] Group notes about the same change and show where readers disagree or leave a gap.
- [ ] You have: A grouped view of agreement, conflict and single-reader points.
- [ ] Check: Every row of the table has one of "agree", "conflict" or "single" in the Relationship column.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it.

## Step 3: Plan the revision

- [ ] Decide which edit follows the draft purpose and which comment needs an answer.
- [ ] You have: A revision plan with specific edits and open questions.
- [ ] Check: Every row of the table has one of "revise", "ask" or "keep" in the Decision column.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it.

## Step 4: Write a short feedback response

- [ ] Summarize changes and explain unresolved comments to the three readers.
- [ ] You have: A shareable response that keeps the decision and each reader's concern visible.
- [ ] Check: The answer includes the words "Questions to resolve".
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it.

## Final checks

- [ ] Check: Compare {{steps.extract}} with {{steps.plan}} and the response. Does each distinct reader comment get an edit, a question or a reason to keep the draft, and are conflicts still visible? Answer FAIL and name any lost comment.
  Checked by a second AI prompt. If not: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it.
- [ ] Check: Read the original three notes beside the draft. Confirm that each proposed edit is feasible, resolve conflicting requests with the decision owner, and check facts before sending a revised draft.
  Checked by you. If not: Carry on, but write down the problem so whoever uses the result knows about it.

## You end up with

- [ ] A grouped table of actual reader comments, including conflicts and single-reader concerns.
- [ ] A revision plan and a concise response to the three readers.

---

From Logic Lab (logiclabhq.com). Free to use and adapt, with credit.