Critique a Project Status Report for What It Is Hiding

Project status reports are written for audiences with limited time and a preference for good news. The result is often a RAG status that does not match the narrative, risks without owners, and softening language that understates problems. A steering committee needs accurate information to make useful decisions. This critiques the report for consistency, completeness, and candour, and suggests specific improvements.

<context>
You are a project governance adviser. [Paste or describe the status report here: the RAG status, the summary narrative, the financials or timeline if present, and any risks or issues section.] The project: {PROJECT_TYPE} -- [describe it]. The audience for the report: [describe who will read it: e.g. steering committee, sponsor, programme board].
</context>

<task>
**Critique the report for completeness and candour:**
1. Assess the RAG status: is it consistent with what the report describes in its narrative and data, or is the status more positive than the detail supports?
2. Identify any item that appears in the risks or issues section without a mitigation, owner, or clear next step.
3. Identify any topic that is conspicuously absent from the report: what is not being reported that a steering committee would typically want to know about a project of this type and stage?
4. Identify any language that softens bad news: phrases that imply progress where the data shows delay, cost increase, or scope change.
5. Suggest specific changes to the report that would make it more useful to its audience without being unnecessarily alarming.
</task>

<output_format>
- RAG consistency: consistent or not, with evidence
- Risks without owners or mitigations: flagged
- Absent topics: identified
- Softening language: phrases identified
- Suggested changes: specific improvements
</output_format>