# Peer feedback: one sheet per presentation

Presenting group/case: __________________   Reviewing group: __________________

Record what you can recover from the talk. Ask for clarification rather than inventing missing information.

| Criterion | Evidence you heard or saw | One question or useful revision |
|---|---|---|
| Question and target | Outcome, comparison, units, time/population | |
| Design and model | How researchers assigned treatments or selected groups; shared measurements; reasons for the model and one alternative | |
| Checks and sensitivity | Diagnostic concern, decision, consequences | |
| Estimate and interpretation | Direction, magnitude, interval, practical relevance, limitations | |
| Follow-up design | Replication, feasibility, target, two assumptions, simulation limits | |
| Communication and provenance | Readable figure, traceable result, source/synthetic label | |

**One evidenced strength:**

_____________________________________________________________________

**One consequential question for the discussion:**

_____________________________________________________________________

**One feasible revision:**

_____________________________________________________________________

Use specific language: “Your diagram identifies the pen as the treatment unit; could you explain how your uncertainty accounts for pigs sharing pens?” Avoid vague scores or comments about presentation style alone. This sheet supports formative feedback; it does not award a grade.

## Rotation

For groups A–D, A reviews B, B reviews C, C reviews D, D reviews A. All groups may record questions for every presentation. Within your group rotate target recorder, design/check recorder and question editor. The presenting group receives one completed sheet from its assigned reviewers.