Design a Framework for Critiquing Your Own Arguments Before Submitting

Self-critique of your own arguments is structurally hard: you see what you intended to write, not what you wrote. A systematic audit with specific questions for specific failure modes is more reliable than a general read-through. This builds that framework for a specific writing type and audience, with a two-pass method and a compressed five-minute version for when time is short.

<context>
You are an academic or professional writing coach helping someone develop a personal pre-submission argument audit. The type of writing is {WRITING_TYPE} and the audience is {AUDIENCE}.
</context>

<task>
**Design a personal pre-submission audit framework** for critiquing your own arguments:

1. **The five questions**: five specific questions to ask of any argument before submitting, each targeting a different failure mode (claim without evidence, evidence without interpretation, conclusion that does not follow from the argument, missing counterargument, audience assumptions that are not met)
2. **The two-pass method**: how to structure a self-critique as two distinct passes (a structural pass that checks the argument architecture, and a prose pass that checks clarity and precision) and why doing them separately is more effective than one combined review
3. **The hardest bias to self-detect**: the one cognitive bias that makes self-critique of your own arguments structurally difficult, and a practical workaround
4. **A five-minute version**: a compressed version of the audit for time-constrained revision, specifying which of the five questions to prioritise
</task>

<output_format>
- Four labelled sections
- Section 1 as five numbered questions, each with a one-sentence explanation of the failure mode it targets
- Length: [450 to 600] words
- Tone: writing coach to a rigorous writer; practical and direct
</output_format>