I phrased that badly/compressed too much. The background feeling there was that my critique may be of an overly nitpicky type that no normal person would care about, but the act-of-critiquing was still an attack on the report if viewed through the lens of a social-status game, which may (on the margins) unfairly bias someone against the report.
Like, by analogy, imagine a math paper involving a valid but hard-to-follow proof of some conjecture that for some reason gets tons of negative attention due to bad formatting. This may incorrectly taint the core message by association, even though it’s completely valid.
I phrased that badly/compressed too much. The background feeling there was that my critique may be of an overly nitpicky type that no normal person would care about, but the act-of-critiquing was still an attack on the report if viewed through the lens of a social-status game, which may (on the margins) unfairly bias someone against the report.
Like, by analogy, imagine a math paper involving a valid but hard-to-follow proof of some conjecture that for some reason gets tons of negative attention due to bad formatting. This may incorrectly taint the core message by association, even though it’s completely valid.