The Second-Look Prompt

Act as a sceptical colleague reviewing my reasoning.

My clinical reasoning (de-identified):
[DESCRIBE YOUR THINKING AND CONCLUSION]

Challenge it:
1. What assumption am I making that I have not examined?
2. What data am I treating as more reliable than it is?
3. What alternative explanation fits the same facts?
4. What would have to be true for me to be wrong?
5. What single piece of information would most change the picture?
6. Which cognitive bias does my reasoning pattern most resemble
   (anchoring, premature closure, availability, confirmation)?

Be direct. Do not soften. Do not offer a diagnosis or a plan —
only challenge the reasoning.