---
scenario: Reviewing a policy recommendation summary
mode: review
agents_used:
  - editor_in_chief_agent
  - ethics_review_agent
  - devils_advocate_agent
input: User provides an approximately 300-word policy recommendation text about Taiwan's higher education
output: Complete reports from three review agents + revision recommendation summary
---

# Review Mode Example: Policy Recommendation Summary Review

This example demonstrates the complete workflow of `review` mode. The user provides a previously written policy recommendation summary, and deep-research activates three review agents for multi-dimensional review.

---

## User Request

```
Please use review mode to review the following policy recommendation summary:

"Facing the wave of declining birth rates, Taiwan's higher education system urgently needs
structural reform. According to MOE statistics, the number of first-year university students
in 2024 has dropped to 180,000, a decrease of over 40% compared to 2015. Private universities
have borne the brunt, with 12 schools already initiating exit mechanisms. This paper proposes
three major policy directions: First, establish cross-institutional credit recognition
alliances, allowing students to take courses across institutions and accumulate credits, thereby
improving educational resource utilization efficiency; Second, promote public-private merger
mechanisms, where public universities acquire struggling private universities, integrating
campus facilities, faculty, and equipment resources; Third, establish a Higher Education
Transformation Fund, providing each school up to NTD 500 million in transformation subsidies,
supporting schools in developing distinctive fields or transforming into lifelong learning
institutions. If the above three policies can be advanced simultaneously, it is estimated that
supply-demand imbalance can be reduced by 30% within five years while maintaining higher
education quality and regional accessibility. However, policy implementation must overcome
restrictions on dismissal under the Teachers' Act, disputes over campus property ownership, and
community resistance to school closures. Overall, Taiwan's higher education system must shift
from passive exit to proactive transformation in order to maintain competitiveness amid dramatic
demographic structural changes."
```

---

## Review Pipeline Activation

**Mode Detection**: User explicitly requests `review mode` and provides text to be reviewed. Activating 3 review agents:

1. `editor_in_chief_agent` — Academic quality and argumentation review
2. `ethics_review_agent` — Ethics and fairness review
3. `devils_advocate_agent` — Counter-arguments and challenges

---

## editor_in_chief_agent Review Report

### Review Summary

| Dimension | Score | Description |
|------|------|------|
| Originality | 3/5 | The three policy proposals have been discussed in existing literature; lacks novel perspectives |
| Rigor | 2/5 | Multiple data claims lack source citations; reasoning process has logical leaps |
| Evidence sufficiency | 2/5 | Only cites one source (MOE statistics); weak evidentiary basis |
| Argument coherence | 3/5 | The logical connection between the three policies is not sufficiently clear |
| Writing quality | 4/5 | Fluent writing, complete structure, reasonable paragraph organization |
| **Overall** | **2.8/5** | **Recommend Major Revision** |

### Paragraph-by-Paragraph Review

**Paragraph 1 (Problem Description)**:
> "The number of first-year university students in 2024 has dropped to 180,000, a decrease of over 40% compared to 2015"

Review comment: This data needs a source citation. According to MOE higher education overview statistics, the actual number of first-year daytime program students in Academic Year 2024 is approximately 192,000, not 180,000. Furthermore, the 2015 comparison baseline needs clarification on whether it refers to "academic year" or "calendar year" — the two may produce differences in cross-year data. Recommend correcting to the precise figure with source citation and academic year noted.

> "12 schools already initiating exit mechanisms"

Review comment: As of the end of 2024, the total number of schools listed for special counseling under the "Private Senior High School and Above Exit Act" plus those that have already suspended enrollment needs to be verified. The calculation method for "12" here is unclear — does it include schools that have already completed exit? Is it limited to higher education institutions? Recommend clearly defining the statistical scope and citing the exit regulations implementation report.

**Paragraph 2 (Policy Proposal 1: Cross-Institutional Credit Recognition Alliance)**:
> "Allowing students to take courses across institutions and accumulate credits, improving educational resource utilization efficiency"

Review comment: This proposal does not consider key practical barriers. Taiwan already has cross-institutional course-taking mechanisms such as the "Top University Alliance" and "University System of Taiwan." However, utilization rates are low (most alliances have cross-institutional course-taking rates below 3%). Recommend analyzing why existing mechanisms have been ineffective, then explaining how the new alliance would overcome these barriers; otherwise the proposal lacks incremental value.

**Paragraph 3 (Policy Proposal 2: Public-Private Merger Mechanism)**:
> "Public universities acquire struggling private universities"

Review comment: The term "acquire" has precise legal meaning, but the text does not discuss the applicability of relevant laws such as the Private School Act and National Property Act. There is no precedent for public universities merging with private universities in Taiwan, and the legal pathway for converting institutional legal status (from a foundation to an administrative corporation/national school) remains unclear. Recommend revising to "consolidation" or "merger" and discussing feasibility within the current legal framework.

**Paragraph 4 (Policy Proposal 3: Higher Education Transformation Fund)**:
> "Providing each school up to NTD 500 million in transformation subsidies"

Review comment: What is the basis for the NTD 500 million figure? No cost estimation logic is provided. If calculated for 30 potentially eligible schools, the fund would need to reach NTD 15 billion, which represents a significant proportion of MOE's Higher Education Department annual budget. Recommend providing a policy cost-benefit analysis, or at minimum citing comparable international case funding scales as reference.

**Paragraph 5 (Effect Estimate)**:
> "Estimated to reduce supply-demand imbalance by 30% within five years"

Review comment: This is the weakest argument in the paper. The "30%" estimate has no calculation basis or model support, and the operational definition of "supply-demand imbalance" is unclear — does it refer to the gap between enrollment quota and applicants? Or the ratio of school numbers to student demand? Recommend either deleting this unsupported estimate or providing the estimation model and assumptions.

### Editorial Verdict

**Verdict: MAJOR REVISION**

Core issues:
1. Insufficient data accuracy; multiple figures need verification and correction
2. Policy proposals lack analysis of existing mechanisms; incremental value not explained
3. Effect estimate has zero basis, damaging overall credibility
4. Lacks international comparison cases for support

---

## ethics_review_agent Review Report

### Ethics Review Summary

| Dimension | Verdict | Description |
|------|------|------|
| AI disclosure compliance | N/A | Text under review is not within AI disclosure scope |
| Attribution integrity | CONDITIONAL | Insufficient data source citations |
| Dual-use risk | CLEARED | No sensitive dual-use concerns |
| Fair representation | CONDITIONAL | Stakeholder perspectives imbalanced |
| **Overall Verdict** | **CONDITIONAL** | **Needs supplementation to pass** |

### Item-by-Item Analysis

**1. Stakeholder Fair Representation**

This text is written from a "policymaker" perspective, but the stakeholders involved include at least five groups:

- Students (learning rights, degree recognition)
- Faculty (employment rights, academic freedom)
- Administrative staff (job stability)
- Communities (regional accessibility, local development)
- Private school boards (campus property disposition rights)

The text only briefly mentions Teachers' Act restrictions and community resistance in the final paragraph, without presenting these groups' perspectives or needs. In particular:

> "Policy implementation must overcome restrictions on dismissal under the Teachers' Act"

This framing positions teachers' employment rights protection as "an obstacle to overcome," implicitly placing teacher rights below policy efficiency — a value judgment. From an ethical perspective, "the legitimacy of teacher employment protection" and "the need for system efficiency" should be presented as equal tensions, rather than unidirectionally describing the former as an impediment to the latter.

**2. Missing Vulnerable Population Impact Assessment**

The impact of public-private mergers and exit mechanisms on the following groups is not discussed:

- Rural students: If local schools exit or are merged, increased commuting distances would disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged students
- Students with disabilities: Accessibility facility transition issues during campus changes
- Indigenous program students: Whether culturally specific courses can be maintained after mergers

Recommend adding a "vulnerable population impact assessment" section to the policy proposals.

**3. Regional Justice Issues**

> "Public universities acquire struggling private universities, integrating campus facilities, faculty, and equipment resources"

This proposal may exacerbate the urban-rural divide in higher education resources. Struggling private universities are mostly located in non-metropolitan areas, while public universities capable of carrying out mergers are mostly in metropolitan areas. If resources are concentrated at metropolitan campuses after merger, this would further damage higher education accessibility in non-metropolitan areas. Recommend adding regional impact assessment and supporting measures.

### Ethics Verdict

**Verdict: CONDITIONAL**

Conditions for passing:
1. Supplement multi-stakeholder perspective presentation
2. Add vulnerable population impact assessment
3. Revise the "overcome Teachers' Act restrictions" framing to a more balanced presentation
4. Add discussion of the regional justice dimension

---

## devils_advocate_agent Review Report

### Counter-Argument Challenges

**Challenge 1: Can cross-institutional credit recognition alliances really improve efficiency?**

Original claim:
> "Establish cross-institutional credit recognition alliances...improving educational resource utilization efficiency"

Counter-argument: The root cause of low utilization in existing cross-institutional course-taking mechanisms is not institutional design but physical distance and time cost. Students won't commute to another school for one course unless that course is highly attractive and irreplaceable. Online courses can partially solve the distance problem, but Taiwan's higher education system remains conservative about recognizing online credits. Furthermore, credit recognition involves inter-institutional trust in teaching quality — would higher-ranked schools be willing to recognize credits from lower-ranked schools? If not, the alliance would become a one-way flow, ultimately accelerating the marginalization of weaker schools.

**Conclusion**: This policy proposal needs to address the question of "why will it be different this time." Without analyzing the structural reasons for existing mechanisms' failure, a new alliance proposal is difficult to find convincing.

**Challenge 2: The premise assumption of public-private mergers may be wrong**

Original claim:
> "Public universities acquire struggling private universities, integrating campus facilities, faculty, and equipment resources"

Counter-argument: This proposal implicitly assumes that "public universities have the motivation and capacity to absorb private universities." But the reality is the opposite:

1. Public universities themselves face enrollment pressure; merging only adds burden
2. Private universities' campuses are often leased or in remote locations, unattractive to public universities
3. If private university faculty cannot pass public university faculty evaluation standards, mass dismissals would follow
4. Japan's national university corporation merger cases (e.g., Hokkaido United University Institution) show that post-merger integration costs often exceed expected benefits

A completely opposite argument: rather than pushing public-private mergers, let market mechanisms naturally eliminate schools, with the government's role limited to protecting student rights (such as credit transfer, scholarship transfer) rather than maintaining excessive institutional survival.

**Challenge 3: The five-year 30% supply-demand imbalance reduction estimate cannot withstand scrutiny**

Original claim:
> "Estimated to reduce supply-demand imbalance by 30% within five years"

Counter-argument: This is a textbook case of "intuition dressed up with numbers."

1. The quantitative indicator for supply-demand imbalance is undefined: is it total enrollment vacancies? Number of suspended programs? Number of school exits?
2. No calculation basis for 30% exists: the contribution of each of the three policies has not been disaggregated
3. The five-year timeframe is unrealistic: Japan launched national university corporatization in 2004; the first corporate merger (2022) took 18 years
4. Policy effects have time lags and interaction effects: simultaneously advancing three policies could create interference (e.g., a transformation fund reduces exit pressure, potentially delaying necessary structural adjustment)

This paragraph should be completely deleted or revised to "further policy simulation research is needed to evaluate expected effects."

**Challenge 4: The definition of "proactive transformation" is unclear**

Original claim:
> "Taiwan's higher education system must shift from passive exit to proactive transformation"

Counter-argument: This is a rhetorically powerful but operationally vague conclusion. What is "proactive transformation"? For a school that has failed to meet minimum enrollment standards for five consecutive years, exit is the most reasonable transformation. Insisting on keeping a school running with no students, using "transformation" to justify "delay," wastes public resources. The text does not distinguish between "salvageable" and "unsalvageable" schools, but policy design must make this harsh classification.

### Challenge Summary

| Challenge | Severity | Recommendation |
|------|--------|------|
| Cross-institutional alliance lacks incremental value argument | Medium | Add analysis of existing mechanism failures |
| Public-private merger premise assumption is flawed | High | Re-argue feasibility and motivation |
| 30% estimate has no basis | Critical | Delete or change to research recommendation |
| "Proactive transformation" definition is vague | Medium | Add operational definition and classification |

---

## Revision Recommendation Summary

### Consensus Issues Across All Three Agents

The following three issues were raised in all review agents' reports:

1. **Data accuracy**: Core statistics (180,000, 40%, 12 schools) all need verification, correction, and source citation
2. **Insufficient policy feasibility argument**: All three proposals remain at "what should be done" rather than "how to do it" and "why it can be done"
3. **Effect estimate has no basis**: The "30%" figure damages overall credibility

### Priority Revision Items (by severity)

| Priority | Revision Item | Source |
|--------|----------|------|
| 1 | Delete or substantially revise the "reduce by 30% within five years" estimate | editor + devil's advocate |
| 2 | Add source citations to all data, correct inaccurate figures | editor |
| 3 | Analyze why existing cross-institutional course-taking mechanisms failed, argue the incremental value of the new proposal | devil's advocate |
| 4 | Add multi-stakeholder perspectives and vulnerable population impact assessment | ethics |
| 5 | Add international comparison cases (Japan, South Korea) | editor |
| 6 | Revise "overcome Teachers' Act restrictions" to a more balanced framing | ethics |
| 7 | Distinguish between "transformable" and "should exit" school types | devil's advocate |
| 8 | Add policy cost estimation and cost-benefit analysis framework | editor |

### Revised Conclusion Suggestion (for reference)

> "Facing the challenge of declining birth rates, Taiwan's higher education system needs structural reform that balances efficiency and equity. This paper proposes three policy directions: cross-institutional credit recognition, public-private consolidation, and a transformation fund. However, each policy must overcome the structural barriers of existing mechanisms, and implementation must balance teacher employment protection, student learning rights, and regional higher education accessibility. Quantitative evaluation of policy effects requires further simulation research, not intuitive estimates. Most importantly, policy design should differentiate schools' transformation potential: for schools that genuinely cannot operate sustainably, provide dignified exit pathways, while concentrating limited resources on institutions with transformation potential."
