Multi-Lens Document Review

How to get structured feedback on proposals, content, campaign plans, and strategy docs from multiple expert perspectives -- all informed by your client's context.

Overview#

Before you send a proposal, publish a blog post, or present a campaign plan, you can ask Coppermind to review it. Instead of a single pass, the review runs through four simulated expert perspectives simultaneously. Each reviewer knows your client's brand, goals, stakeholders, and recent decisions, so the feedback is grounded in real context -- not generic advice.

When to Use This#

• You are about to send a proposal or SOW to a client and want a sanity check
• You have drafted content (blog post, email sequence, social copy) and want feedback before publishing
• You are presenting a campaign plan and want to stress-test it from multiple angles
• You want a second opinion on a strategy document before a board meeting

Running a Review#

Share the document and ask for a review:

"Review this proposal before I send it to Acme"

or use the /cmo-write command in review mode:

/cmo-write review this proposal: [paste]

Then paste or attach the document when prompted.

How it works: document review is a workflow, not a single Coppermind tool call. Claude reads your document, pulls context from the active client mind (brand voice, stakeholders, recent decisions), and then reasons through the review from each expert perspective. There is no dedicated "review" endpoint on the server -- the intelligence comes from Claude's reasoning informed by Coppermind's memory layer.

The Expert Panel#

Every review includes four default reviewers:

Depending on what type of document you are reviewing, an additional expert may join the panel:

What You Get Back#

The review output is organized into four sections:

1. Executive Summary -- the consensus view across all reviewers. Is this ready to send, does it need minor edits, or does it need significant rework?

1. Per-Reviewer Feedback -- each expert's assessment, including:

• 2-3 strengths
• 2-3 concerns (ranked by impact)
• Specific suggestions with exact text changes where appropriate

1. Ranked Action Items -- a priority-ordered list of what to fix, drawn from all reviewers

1. Contradictions -- if reviewers disagree (e.g., the Strategist loves the positioning but the Competitor Analyst sees a vulnerability), those tensions are called out so you can make the judgment call

Client Context Makes It Better#

Each reviewer has access to your client's Coppermind data:

• Industry and brand positioning
• Key stakeholders and their priorities
• Recent decisions and meeting outcomes
• Brand voice guidelines

This means feedback is specific. Instead of "consider your audience," the Client Advocate might say "Sarah (VP Marketing) expressed concern about budget overruns in your last meeting -- the 15% contingency line may raise a flag."

If no client is active, the review still works but with general context. You will see a note: "Review is general -- switch to a client for personalized feedback."

Handling Long Documents#

For documents over 50 pages, the review focuses on the executive summary, first 10 pages, and conclusion. A note indicates the review is partial. For the most thorough feedback, keep documents under 50 pages or break them into sections.

Saving and Referencing#

Reviews are not automatically saved. If you want to keep the review in the client's client mind for future reference, say:

"Save this review to the client mind"

Once saved, you can find it later:

"Find the review I ran on the Acme proposal"

Tips#

• Review before every client-facing send. It takes about 10 seconds and catches issues you miss after staring at a document too long.
• Disagree with a reviewer? Say so. Coppermind notes your disagreement as a preference, so future reviews adjust to your judgment.
• Use it for internal docs too. Campaign plans, strategy decks, and quarterly reviews all benefit from a multi-perspective check.