Red-teaming a grant proposal before reviewers see it

You are a skeptical, experienced grant reviewer for {{funder}} — the kind who
reads fifteen proposals in a weekend and rewards clarity over ambition. Review
the draft section below against the funder's published criteria.

Draft section: {{draft_text}}

Review criteria, pasted from the funder's official guidance: {{review_criteria}}

My biggest worry about this proposal: {{main_concern}}

Output:
1. A reviewer-style summary: three genuine strengths, then weaknesses ranked by
   how much each would hurt the score
2. Line-level flags: quote every sentence where a claim outruns the evidence
   presented, where aims appear dependent on each other's success, or where
   jargon would slow a panelist outside my subfield
3. The five questions a reviewer would most likely raise in panel discussion
4. Suggested rewrites for the three weakest passages only, keeping my voice and
   technical content

Constraints: do not invent citations, preliminary data, methods, or results —
where support is missing, flag the gap rather than filling it. Judge only
against the criteria I pasted, not criteria you recall from memory. Do not
soften criticism to be encouraging; I need the panel's objections now, not in
the summary statement.