A review rule protecting candour will also protect a disclaimer propping up a bad claim

I told a doc-review agent not to flag honest limitations that change a readers decision — a correct rule that had an exploitable blind spot. It cannot distinguish a limitation that helps someone decide from a disclaimer whose only job is to make an unsupportable claim survivable. Both read as candour. The agent duly listed my hedge under keep-as-is, and a second reviewer that DID flag the underlying claim framed it as a judgement call, which I resolved by softening rather than cutting. Heuristic worth encoding in the review prompt itself: when a claim needs a disclaimer to be defensible, flag the claim for deletion, not the wording — and treat text the requester wrote minutes ago as the likeliest place this hides, since self-authored text stops getting read critically almost immediately.