# Peer Review Feedback Form

Collect specific, prioritized, evidence-aware, actionable feedback from a writing peer while separating reader response, editorial judgment, and required decisions.

## Usage note

Agree on the review stage and brief before commenting. Review the work, not the writer, and do not claim expertise you do not hold. Protect confidential drafts and route factual, legal, safety, or specialist questions to qualified owners. The writer or accountable editor retains the final decision unless the workflow says otherwise.

## How to use this template

1. Confirm the brief, audience, review stage, confidentiality, feedback scope, and decision owner.
2. Read once without editing and record an unaided summary, reader experience, and strengths.
3. Add location-specific comments that describe the issue, effect, evidence, priority, and decision needed.
4. Group comments into patterns, remove duplication, and order revisions by consequence and dependency.
5. Discuss questions with the writer, record accepted decisions, and assign any specialist follow-up.

## Blank template

### Review setup

- **Draft and version:** [File or URL]
- **Writer:** [Name or role]
- **Reviewer:** [Name or role]
- **Audience and reader task:** [From brief]
- **Review stage:** [Concept / Structure / Draft / Line / Final]
- **Requested focus:** [Questions from writer]
- **Out of scope:** [Areas not reviewed]
- **Decision owner:** [Who accepts changes?]

### First-read response

- **My summary:** [What the draft says and does]
- **Main contribution:** [What is new or useful]
- **Expected next action:** [What the reader should do]
- **Strongest element:** [Specific passage and why]
- **First confusion:** [Location and reader effect]
- **Missing context:** [What I needed]
- [ ] This response was recorded before line editing.
- [ ] Personal preference is labeled as such.

### Feedback item

- **Comment ID and location:** [Identifier]
- **Priority:** [Blocking / High value / Optional]
- **Type:** [Purpose / Structure / Evidence / Clarity / Voice / Mechanics]
- **Observation:** [What appears in the draft]
- **Reader effect or risk:** [Why it matters]
- **Evidence:** [Brief, source, style rule, or reviewer experience]
- **Question or action:** [What decision is needed]
- **Specialist owner:** [If outside peer expertise]

### Synthesis and handoff

- **Top revision 1:** [Pattern and locations]
- **Top revision 2:** [Pattern and locations]
- **Revision order:** [Dependency]
- **Strength to preserve:** [Specific feature]
- **Conflicting feedback:** [How resolved]
- **Accepted decision:** [Writer or editor response]
- **Open follow-up:** [Owner and date]