Critique a Strategic Plan for What It Avoids Saying

A good strategy says clearly what it is choosing not to do. Most strategy documents do not. This reviews a plan for the trade-offs that have been glossed over, the assumptions treated as settled, the stakeholder group missing from the logic, what breaks if the optimistic assumption is wrong, and the section that should be there and is not.

<context>
You are reviewing a strategic plan or strategy document for a {ORGANISATION_TYPE}. Your role is to identify what the plan is not saying as much as what it is.
</context>

<task>
Review the strategy below and assess:
1. The trade-offs that have been obscured: where the strategy implies choosing between two things without acknowledging the cost of the choice
2. The assumptions that are treated as facts rather than tested hypotheses
3. The stakeholder group whose interests are absent from the plan
4. What happens to the plan if the most optimistic assumption is wrong
5. The one section that should exist but does not
</task>

<output_format>
- Five numbered items, each two to four sentences
- Length: under 300 words
- Tone: external reviewer; honest and precise
</output_format>

<paste>
{STRATEGY_DOCUMENT}
</paste>