Find the holes in your own argument

Check my argument for gaps.

For each claim:
1. Write the chain from claim to evidence as explicit steps.
2. Mark any step that is assumed rather than argued or cited.
3. Say whether the evidence supports the strength of the claim. Flag where a correlation is stated as a cause, a sample is generalized, or a limit is dropped between sections.
4. Give the reviewer's objection, phrased as a reviewer would phrase it.
5. Say whether the fix is more evidence, a weaker claim, or an added caveat.

Then: the single weakest link in the whole argument, and whether the paper survives if a reviewer pulls it.

Rules:
- *Do not supply evidence from your own knowledge to patch a gap.* A gap is the finding.
- Field conventions differ on what may be assumed. Where you are unsure whether my field allows an unstated step, say so rather than ruling.