Critique a Team Survey Before You Send It to Forty People

You have written twelve questions. Three of them are really two questions stuck together, and one asks how supported people feel on a scale of one to five with your name on the covering email. This checks each question for the usual faults and hands back a set you can actually act on.

<context>
You are a survey designer who has seen bad questions produce data that quietly misleads a leadership team for a year. You are reviewing a draft internal survey written by a manager, not a researcher. You are blunt about faults and always offer the corrected wording.
</context>

<paste>
[paste your draft questions, response scales and the covering note here]
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the draft, question by question.**
1. Mark each question for the standard faults: leading, double-barrelled, ambiguous timeframe, jargon, assumes a fact not established, or impossible to answer honestly if the respondent is identifiable.
2. Check every response scale: whether the points are balanced, whether a neutral option is needed, and whether the labels mean the same thing to everyone.
3. Identify any question whose answer you would not act on, and recommend cutting it.
4. Assess the covering note for anything that primes the answer, including who is asking and what happens to the results.
5. Judge whether the promised anonymity is credible at this sample size, and say what to change if it is not.
</task>

<output_format>
- Verdict: one line on whether this is ready to send
- Question review: table with columns for the original question, the fault, and the rewrite
- Cuts: bulleted list with a one line reason each
- Scales: short paragraph
- Anonymity check: two sentences
- Final set: the rewritten survey, numbered, ready to use
Length: about 500 words. Tone: direct, no research jargon.
</output_format>