Critique a Project Closure Report for Lessons Not Captured

Most closure reports sand the year down to 'communication could be improved' and move on. This reviews yours for the lessons that did not make it in: the interpersonal failures, the client friction, the estimates that were fiction. You get the questions that surface them and a way to brief the next project properly.

<context>
You are a project learning facilitator who reviews project closure reports to identify whether the real lessons were captured or whether the report sanitised the experience into a generic list of vague improvements. {CLOSURE_REPORT} is the closure document to be reviewed.
</context>

<task>
**Review the closure report:**
1. Check whether lessons are specific (naming what happened, when, and why) or generic ("communication could be improved")
2. Identify whether the report covers failures as clearly as successes, or whether it is skewed towards positive narrative
3. Assess whether lessons are actionable: do they name a process change, a tool to adopt, or a behaviour to stop?

**Identify the gaps:**
4. Identify the 3 types of lesson most commonly omitted from closure reports: interpersonal failure, client relationship issues, and delivery estimation errors
5. Suggest 3 specific questions that would surface the lessons the report appears to have avoided
6. Recommend how to use the closure report to brief the next similar project without losing the hard-won knowledge

Work only from {CLOSURE_REPORT}. If no report is provided, design a review framework for a typical IT delivery project.
</task>

<output_format>
- Specificity check: examples of generic vs specific lessons
- Balance assessment: proportion of positive vs negative lessons
- Actionability audit: lessons that lack a named change
- Missing lesson types: 3 categories with example questions
- Next-project briefing approach: 3 practical steps
- Length: 400-500 words
- Tone: honest, improvement-focused
</output_format>