Will it rewrite my work?

No. It decides what changes; you make the change.

Does it always side with me?

No. It scrutinises the notes and also warns when you are defending a draft instead of hearing the client.

Does it remember earlier rounds?

It uses whatever earlier notes you paste or keep in the conversation, and gives you a log to carry forward.

Does it pair with Brief Interrogator?

Yes. Brief Interrogator questions the brief before you write; Feedback Interrogator questions the notes after you deliver.

Feedback Interrogator

I haven't rewritten anything. This stage only interrogates the notes. The revision starts once you've decided what changes. It also helps that two of these notes can't be fixed until we know what they mean.

Ledger check: No history on record. I have no earlier rounds, feedback log or emails, so I can't tell whether any of these reopen a settled argument. If there were earlier rounds, paste them in and I'll match them.

#	Note	Class	Reading(s), with a test	Rung	Proposed response
1	"Love it overall!"	n/a	Not a note. It tells us nothing about what they'll protect, and it's the kind of praise that comes before a stakeholder reverses.	n/a	Don't treat it as approval of the idea. Ask: "Which part do you love most?" That tells you what is safe to touch.
2	"Can the headline be more premium?"	KILL if it means the core line, POLISH if it means tone	1) Tone: "moves" and "with you" read as mass-market. Test: show two versions with the same idea in a quieter register. 2) Typography or layout is carrying the "not premium" feeling, not the words. Test: show the current words in a restrained setting. 3) The bank is repositioning upmarket and this campaign looks like the old segment. Test: ask what the premium customer is meant to be. 4) Someone senior used the word "premium" in a meeting. Test: ask who said it and what they referred to. Ranked, I'd put 3 and 4 first.	Surface	Clarify before touching it. Send: "When you say premium, can you point to a brand or ad that gets it right?" If "Money that moves with you" is the campaign line and not just a headline, changing it changes the idea. Name that cost to the client.
3	"Legal wants 'guaranteed' removed from the second line."	POLISH	There is only one reading. A bank can't use "guaranteed" without a legal basis.	Allow	Accept. Ask one thing: does the line still make its point without the word? If "guaranteed" was the proof, find another proof or move to a softer verb. Also ask Legal for any other terms to avoid, so this doesn't come back next round.
4	"Our CEO prefers blue, can we lose the orange?"	KILL	1) The CEO dislikes orange as a colour. Test: ask whether any warm tone is acceptable. 2) The CEO wants the campaign to match the existing brand palette. Test: check the brand guidelines for where orange sits. 3) The CEO is nervous and this is a proxy for "I'm not sure about the whole thing." Test: see whether other notes follow from the CEO. Ranked: 2, 1, 3.	Challenge or Surface	Orange is probably what makes "moves" visible. A blue-only version makes the campaign look like every other bank. Surface the cost with a side-by-side. Challenge only if the brief named distinctiveness as the goal, so check it. The brief is what the argument rests on.
5	"Make it shorter."	POLISH or KILL	It doesn't say what to shorten. 1) The headline. 2) The body copy. 3) The whole piece or film. 4) The reading time of the whole deck.	Clarify	Send: "Which part felt too long, and by roughly how much?" Don't trim anything until they answer.

The note behind the note: My guess is the CEO is a stakeholder who wasn't in the room, and notes 2 and 4 both come from them. "More premium" and "blue, lose the orange" read like one person's taste passed through the client, not a market finding. Note 1 is probably there to soften what follows. Note 3 is the only one with a real constraint behind it. This is a hypothesis, not a fact.

Which need is steering: Notes 2, 4 and 5 are bending the work to please the room, not to solve the brief. That may be the right call, since the CEO signs it off. But decide it on purpose, and don't let it drift in through small edits.

Resolved-notes log: I can keep a log of note, decision and date for this round so round two can't quietly reopen it. Say the word and I'll start it once you've decided.

What actually changes, what I'd defend, and why:

Changes: removing "guaranteed" (note 3), because Legal's requirement isn't a creative choice.

Clarify first, then decide: "premium" (note 2) and "shorter" (note 5), because nothing can be fixed until we know what they mean.

Defend: the orange, with a side-by-side and the brief in hand, and "Money that moves with you" as the idea, because the line and the colour are what carry it.

About this skill

"Can it feel more premium?" "Make it warmer." "The CEO isn't sure." Answering client notes literally is how round two becomes round six.

Feedback Interrogator reads the notes before you touch the work.

Each note is classed KILL (it touches the idea) or POLISH (wording and detail).
Vague notes get several possible readings, ranked, each with a quick way to find out which one the client meant.
Every note gets a proposed response on a four-step scale, from "just do it" to "argue it with the brief in hand".
It spots notes that reopen arguments you already settled, and names the note behind the note: the stakeholder who wasn't in the room.

It never rewrites the work. It ends with "What actually changes, what I'd defend, and why", and offers a log of resolved notes so later rounds can't relitigate earlier ones.

Tested before launch, twice. Round one, one round of client notes, run with and without the skill and graded blind against five checks written in advance: 4 of 5 with the skill, 1 of 5 without; the test found one flaw in the closing step, fixed, re-run, 5 of 5. Round two, four rounds of notes (including one that quietly reopened a settled decision and one that was just "it doesn't feel like us"): 19 of 20 with, 5 of 20 without. Without the skill, Claude rewrote the headline instead of deciding what should change.

Who it's for: copywriters, designers, creative teams and freelancers who answer client or stakeholder feedback.

Feedback Interrogator