Peer Review
Work reviewed: [title / link]
Author: [name]
Reviewer: [name]
Review type: Full / Logic / Code / Sanity check
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Turnaround commitment: [date review will be returned by]
Context
Business question this analysis addresses:
[1 sentence — confirm you read the brief]
What I reviewed:
[ ] Logic and conclusions
[ ] Data sourcing and transformations
[ ] Code (SQL / Python / notebook)
[ ] Communication and presentation
Must Fix
Issues that change the conclusion or produce a wrong output. Delivery is blocked until resolved.
| # | Location | Issue | Suggested fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [e.g. line 42 / slide 3 / CTE revenue_calc] | [What's wrong] | [What to do] |
Should Fix
Issues that weaken the conclusion or could mislead the audience. Should be resolved before delivery.
| # | Location | Issue | Suggested fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [location] | [issue] | [suggestion] |
Minor / Optional
Suggestions for clarity, style, or future improvement. Author's discretion.
| # | Location | Suggestion |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [location] | [suggestion] |
What's Working Well
[At least 2 things done well — be specific. Good reviews note both strengths and issues.]
- [Specific strength]
- [Specific strength]
Overall Assessment
- Approved — no significant issues; ready to deliver as-is
- Approved with minor revisions — should-fix and minor items; no re-review needed
- Revisions required — must-fix items present; re-review after changes
- Blocked — fundamental issues with question/data/method; significant rework needed
Reviewer sign-off: ______________________ Date: __________
(sign off after must-fix items are confirmed resolved)