Play the reader who will close the tab

Find the sentence where the piece gets abandoned, not praise how clear it is

Play an impatient target reader: [reader profile], who only meant to skim. Read the draft below in order, then answer: 1) which paragraph you would close the tab at, and which sentence specifically lost your patience; 2) three places where the writer is talking to themselves and not answering the question in the reader's head; 3) the argument you suspect the author has not thought through either; 4) if you had to keep only half, which paragraphs you would cut. Do not comment on prose style, and do not offer encouragement.

[paste the draft]

How to use

Treat the first bail-out point as a real defect. That is usually where the information density is lowest.

Good for

You wrote it, revised it three times, and can no longer see the problem: you need a view from someone with no reason to be kind.
It is going to readers who do not care about you (a cold channel, an audience outside your field): you need to know which sentence loses them.

Not for

The document is for people who have to read it (an internal process, a contract annex): bail-out points do not matter, accuracy and completeness do.
You actually want encouragement or a verdict: this prompt is designed not to encourage, and it will read as harsh.

Example

Input

In today's fast-moving business environment, companies face unprecedented challenges. Digital transformation is no longer optional; it is the only way to survive. Our product exists for exactly this reason.

What you get

Names the bail-out precisely: the second sentence, at 'no longer optional', because by then the reader still does not know what the product does. Then three places talking to itself, a challenge to the unevidenced 'only way to survive', and cutting the first and last sentences if only half can stay.

Common mistakes

Hiding the reader profile ('just be a normal reader'): with no specifics it plays the least patient person alive and bails far earlier than your real reader would.
Treating it as a scorer: the output is all negatives with no ranking, so you still have to ask which single fix matters most.

Try tweaking it like this

Change 'no encouragement' to 'one thing it got right, then the bail-out point' when the author will read it themselves and you want to keep the relationship.
Add 'you are a competitor's product manager hunting for holes in the argument' when readability is settled and you need to defend.