Welcome to Agentic Feedback Synthesis thatreads every summary statement all the way through.
Reviewer feedback is the most expensive advice an institution receives and the least used. Risely's agents read every summary statement in full, extract what actually moved the score, and hand the PI a resubmission plan.
Synthesis · one PI's resubmission
reading the summary statement
Aim feasibility drew both critiques
address firstreviewers 1 and 3 flagged the same missing pilot data · the new preliminary figure answers it
The rigor section scored well
protectkeep the structure · a revision must not rewrite its own strengths
Institution-wide pattern
systemicthe same power-analysis critique has hit six proposals this year · a template fix is drafted for the office
The plan assembles once the reading is done.
What moved the score gets named.
A summary statement gets read once in anger and filed. The synthesis reads it cold, weighs each critique by who raised it and how hard, and puts the score's real anchor at the top of the plan.
Critiques ranked by weight
Missing pilot data behind one aim
both reviewers · the score's anchor
A thin power analysis
one reviewer · fixable in a page
A quibble about a citation
cosmetic · answer in one line
A summary statement read once in anger treats every critique as equal. The synthesis weighs them.
What scored well gets protected.
The quiet failure mode of resubmissions is rewriting the sections reviewers liked. Everything that scored well is marked protect, so the revision cannot lose ground by accident.
The revision boundary
Resubmissions usually lose ground by rewriting their own strengths. The protect marks make that hard to do by accident.
The pattern across the portfolio surfaces.
The same power-analysis critique has hit six proposals this year, and nobody read across them until now. One template fix, drafted for the office, lifts every submission that follows.
One critique, six proposals
reading across
six proposals this year · the same power-analysis critique
Nobody reads across proposals on stolen time. The synthesis does, and one methods-template fix lifts every future submission at once.
The response map writes itself.
Every response in the resubmission points at the exact comment it answers, in the reviewer's own words. The study section sees that it was heard, which is the strongest signal a resubmission can send.
Every comment gets a response
Reviewer 1 · pilot data missing
new preliminary figure, first page of the response
Reviewer 3 · the same gap
the same figure answers it, in their words
Reviewer 2 · power analysis
expands to one page, per the template fix
Answering a reviewer's exact words is the strongest signal a study section can receive. The map makes it the default.
One statement lands. The synthesis re-runs.
A new summary statement, a program officer's note, a declined resubmission. Any of them adds to what the portfolio knows, and every one runs the same way.
A summary statement arrives
read in full the day it lands
The critiques cluster
two reviewers, one underlying gap
The plan updates
address, protect, leave alone
The pattern check runs
the same critique shows up across the portfolio
The PI starts from a plan
instead of a pile of PDFs
What changes, and how it runs.
Resubmissions answer the actual critique
The first paragraph responds to the exact comment.
Strengths survive the revision
What scored well is marked and left alone.
One fix lifts the whole portfolio
The shared critique becomes a template change for the office.
The technical read
Connects read-only to your grants system and review archive to start
The PI decides what the resubmission changes
Every action lands on an append-only log
Runs alongside what you have. Nothing rips out.