ADZO Research · External rebuttal

Peer Review

Where the framework gets stress-tested by people outside the building. Realistic sourcing plan + intake template + critique log.

Sourcing plan

Three tiers, ordered by realistic response rate. Start at Tier 1.

Tier 1 — Highest realistic response rate

Local sell-side research desks (Malaysia + ASEAN)

Relationship-based; many have read ADZO already; responses tend to be substantive because the framework speaks to their universe directly.

Hong Leong Investment Bank Research — Asia macro / strategy desk
Maybank IB Research — Anand Pathmakanthan + economist desk
RHB Research — regional desk
Kenanga IB Research
AmBank Group Research
CIMB IB Research — Treasury & Markets / Strategy
Public Investment Bank Research

Reach: LinkedIn, FiMM events, training overlaps. Lead time: 2-4 weeks per reviewer.

Tier 2 — Asia-focused independent researchers

Sub-50k macro accounts & Substack writers covering Asia

More responsive than top-of-funnel. Independent researchers writing paid newsletters generally welcome substantive engagement — it's free marketing for their work.

Variant Perception alumni who've gone independent
Ex-CLSA strategists now writing on Substack / Twitter
Asia-focused Substack writers with paid subscriber bases under 5,000
Macro Twitter accounts under 50k followers with specific Asia coverage
HKU / NUS / NTU finance faculty who write publicly on Asia macro

Specific handles intentionally not listed here — they shift fast and you know your network better. Identify 3-5 named candidates from your existing follows and add them to the log below as you reach out. Lead time: 4-8 weeks per reviewer.

Tier 3 — Existing institutional contacts

Eastspring + UTC professional network

Easiest reach; critique is informed by knowing your client constraints + the FiMM / UTC regulatory context. Less external than Tiers 1-2 but useful for catching practical blind spots.

Eastspring Investments Asia macro / multi-asset team
Other Eastspring UTCs in MY who'd recognise the framework
MY UTC professional networks (FiMM events, training, certification programs)

Caveat: Tier 3 review is least external — colleagues + UTC peers may share too many assumptions to challenge the framework's blind spots. Useful but cannot stand alone as "external" peer review for audit-grade purposes.

Intake template

Paste this into an email or DM to a reviewer. The structure enables blind critique — they don't need to know what they're "supposed to" find.

Subject: ADZO Asia Macro Checklist — request for blind framework critique [Recipient name], I publish the ADZO Asia Macro Checklist at adezeno.com/tools/asia-checklist.html — an 8-regime weekly tactical regime read using a four-leg analytical framework (secular thesis · economic engine · capital flows & FX · valuation), with leg-level classification transparency and a pre-registered driver schema. I'd like your blind critique — meaning I haven't told you what I think is broken; I want to know what YOU see when you read it cold. Please look at the live page and answer in any format you like: 1. Which leg classification do you disagree with most, and why? (Specific regime · specific leg · the driver(s) that would change your read) 2. Which driver do you think is mis-allocated to its leg? (e.g. should be Secular but listed under Engine; or measures something different from what the leg requires) 3. What's missing from the framework that an Asia macro reader would expect to see? (A driver · a regime · a methodology gap · a transmission link · anything) 4. What feels right — what's worth keeping if I have to cut? (The most defensible structural choice in your view) 5. Anything else. (Format · methodology · presentation · audit-trail concerns · grade) Take as much or as little time as you want. Even a single-paragraph response is useful. I'll log your critique (anonymised by default; attributed only with your explicit OK) and document my response on the public peer-review page. Thank you, Adezeno ADZO Research · FiMM Consultant No. F01029300 adezeno.com/tools/asia-checklist-peer-review.html

Review log

Reviewers contacted, responses received, my responses to their critiques. Append-only — entries never edited after they're added.

Date contacted	Reviewer / tier	Status	Key critique received	ADZO response
No reviewers contacted yet. First outreach target: 2026-05-19. First responses expected: 2026-06-09 onward.

Anonymity policy

Reviewers are anonymised by default. Reviewer attribution is added only with the reviewer's explicit written OK. The log captures: date of contact, tier (1/2/3), response status (sent / waiting / received / declined / no response after 3 weeks), key critique received, and the ADZO response.

This protects reviewers from being publicly associated with a framework they may have critiqued strongly. It also protects the integrity of future reviews — knowing one's name will be displayed publicly changes how a reviewer writes.

Response discipline

How the framework responds to critique. Documented rules to prevent reflexive defense or reflexive capitulation.

If the critique identifies a methodological error (rule misapplied; leg mis-assigned; driver doesn't measure what the leg claims): acknowledge, fix in the framework, log the change in the regime change log with the critique as the trigger.

If the critique identifies a missing driver (something obvious to the reviewer that the framework doesn't track): acknowledge the gap; flag for quarterly methodology review; do not add ad-hoc in response to a single critique unless multiple reviewers raise it.

If the critique disagrees with a leg classification (reviewer thinks ✓ should be ◐ or similar): document the disagreement; do not change the classification unless the reviewer presents data that crosses the leg's pre-defined threshold. Defending the call is legitimate; capitulating to one critic is not.

If the critique is "the whole framework is wrong": document it; respond with the framework's case; do not change the framework in response unless multiple reviewers converge on the same structural critique. A framework that changes on every critic is dogma in reverse.