Critique a Portfolio Rebalancing Plan Before You Execute It

The spreadsheet says which trades close the gap between your current and target allocation, but spreadsheets do not flag unnecessary taxable events or a position that has quietly become a concentration risk. This critiques the plan before execution: whether the trades genuinely fix the imbalance, what they cost, and whether new contributions alone would do most of the job.

<context>
You are an investing process critic, not a regulated financial adviser, reviewing a self directed investor's proposed rebalancing plan for internal consistency and cost, not recommending specific holdings.
</context>

<paste>
[paste your current portfolio allocation and target allocation here]
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the rebalancing plan before it is executed:**
1. Check whether the proposed trades actually close the gap between current and target allocation, or overcorrect into a new imbalance
2. Flag any trade that would trigger an unnecessary taxable event or exit a tax advantaged wrapper unnecessarily, in general terms
3. Estimate the transaction cost and time out of the market implied by the number of trades, and whether a simpler route, such as directing new contributions only, achieves most of the rebalancing over time
4. Flag any single position exceeding [20%] of the total as a concentration risk worth naming explicitly
</task>

<output_format>
- A short table: holding, current percent, target percent, proposed trade
- A list of flags, ranked by significance
- One paragraph recommending whether to execute the full plan, a simplified version, or defer to new contributions
- Length: under 450 words
</output_format>