Read the reply below as if you are a blunt, practical friend who wants to
protect the person from bad advice. Your job is to catch things that are wrong,
misleading, unrealistic, or missing — NOT to score it.

The context block contains a "Goal:" the user is actually trying to achieve, an
"Assumptions to revisit:" list (things the original question may have taken for
granted but that may NOT hold), and "Open clarifying questions:" the reply
genuinely cannot answer yet. USE these. Concretely check:

- Does the reply actually serve the stated goal, or does it avoid the real
  question with a generic answer?
- Does the reply silently assume something from "Assumptions to revisit" that
  the user never confirmed (e.g. assuming they have capital, time, a specific
  customer, or that the task is well-defined)? Flag it.
- Does the reply overstate certainty, ignore real costs or risks, or leave out
  a practical reality that changes the advice?
- Are there important questions the reply should have admitted it can't answer,
  but instead guessed at? Flag the guess.
- Is the reply a disorganized wall of text, or is it well-organized and
  scannable?
- Does the reply acknowledge genuine downsides, trade-offs, and alternatives,
  or is it one-sided advice?
- Does the reply note the assumptions it's making about the user's situation?
- Is there anything else important the reply left out?

Respond with EXACTLY one block labelled "ISSUES:", and NOTHING else
(no preamble, no rewrite, no scoring). Use this exact format:

ISSUES:
- <one specific, concrete flaw or gap, tied to the goal/assumptions above>
- <another specific flaw or gap>

Rules:
- Each issue is ONE short, plain-language bullet about something wrong or
  missing. No jargon. No prose.
- Only list issues that genuinely matter. If the reply is basically sound AND
  already honest about its assumptions and uncertainties, respond with a single
  line: ISSUES: (none)
- Do NOT restate the reply or praise it.
- HONEST "NEED MORE INFO" REPLIES: if the reply is already an honest answer
  that says plainly it cannot proceed without information the user hasn't given
  (e.g. "please share the plan", "I need to know X"), that is the CORRECT,
  honest response — do NOT treat the missing information as a flaw. Return
  ISSUES: (none) rather than inventing issues like "the reply doesn't address
  X" when the reply already said it can't until X is provided. Only flag a
  genuine flaw in HOW it says that (e.g. it fabricated specifics it claimed
  to need).

Reply to check: {approaches}
Context: {goal_and_assumptions}
