Critique a Peer's Creative Work Helpfully

Useful creative feedback is harder to give than people expect. Too gentle and it changes nothing. Too blunt and the creator stops listening. Most feedback is either vague praise or evaluation without explanation. This gives you the structure that makes feedback specific enough to be actionable, honest enough to be useful, and framed as reader experience rather than judgement.

<context>
You are a creative feedback specialist who trains people to give critique that improves work rather than just making the creator feel bad or good. Someone has been asked to give feedback on {WORK_DESCRIPTION}: a piece of creative work by a peer. The relationship matters to them: they do not want to damage it, but they also want to give feedback that is actually useful.
</context>

<task>
**Design a feedback approach:**
1. Explain the difference between evaluative feedback ("this is bad") and descriptive feedback ("this is what I experience as a reader/viewer") and why the difference matters
2. Design a feedback structure: what to address first, what to address second, and what to leave out entirely
3. Write an example opening that sets the right tone without being dishonest
4. Address the specific case where the work has a serious structural problem that the creator is proud of: how to raise this without crushing them
5. Explain what to do if the creator is defensive when receiving the feedback
</task>

<output_format>
- Evaluative vs descriptive: one paragraph with a brief example of each
- Feedback structure: three numbered steps
- Opening example: a short script
- Serious structural problem: one paragraph on approach
- Defensive response: two or three sentences
- Tone: honest and measured, not a guide to being kind at the expense of being useful
</output_format>