Reviewer Feedback Form

Conceptual clarity — Are the core concepts clearly defined and consistently applied?

Methodological coherence — Does the evidence architecture hold together as a logical system?

Evidence architecture — Is the separation of evidence streams sound? Does the origin-based distinction hold up?

Separation of evidence streams — Are the streams genuinely independent, or do they introduce shared-method variance?

Assessment philosophy — Is the relationship between assessment, evidence and development clearly articulated?

Possible threats to validity — What internal or external validity threats should be acknowledged more explicitly?

Possible sources of bias — Where could observer, self-report or algorithmic bias enter the system?

Construct definition — Are the six dimensions and competencies well-defined and distinguishable?

Practical implementation — Is the methodology feasible with acceptable reliability in practice?

Future validation priorities — What empirical validation work should be prioritised?

Publication and funding readiness — Top three highest-priority issues before formal validation begins?

Where do you believe the methodology is weakest?

Which assumptions require stronger justification?

Which concepts require clearer definitions?

Where could reviewers misunderstand the methodology, and how should that be prevented?

What additional literature should inform future development?

Established frameworks Silk Clarity should acknowledge, distinguish from, or align with?

Does the relationship between the five evidence streams and the Communication Signature™ introduce synthesis risks?