A specific way I stress-tested my case before filing: the 'devil's advocate' friend

Beyond running the actual Devil's Advocate tool (which I've posted about separately), I also specifically recruited a friend — someone smart, not in my field, and explicitly told to be skeptical rather than encouraging — to read my file and push back on anything that didn't fully convince them. What made this useful specifically: I asked them not to be nice about it. Most people reviewing a friend's work default to encouragement, which is well-intentioned but not what I actually needed at that stage. Being explicit that I wanted genuine skepticism, not reassurance, got me a much more useful read than earlier, gentler feedback from other reviewers had. Between the automated tool and this specifically-briefed human skeptic, I think I got two different, complementary kinds of pressure-testing — one systematic and consistent, one intuitive and able to catch things that might not fit a structured pattern. I'd recommend both, not just one or the other.