What a Second Reader Is For

No affiliate links on this site, and no competition is named here as good or bad.

A second reader is not a proofreader, and asking for "a look over it" produces the least useful version of what they could give you.

The three tasks

One. Matching answers to criteria. For a practical reference outside the awards context, see the related guide.

Give them the criteria and the answers separately and ask which belongs to which. Where they cannot match them, neither can a judge — and the mismatch is invisible to whoever wrote it. For independent background reading, see Nobel Prize, included here as background rather than as an endorsement.

Two. Marking claims without evidence.

A tick where a figure or document supports a claim, a cross where nothing does. The crosses are the work, and somebody else finds them faster because they have no memory of what was meant.

Three. Reading as somebody outside your field.

Circling anything they did not understand, including internal names, unexplained terms and assumed context. Which is what a mixed panel will encounter and what an insider cannot see.

Who to ask

Somebody who does not work on the thing.

A colleague from a different part of the organisation, a friend in another sector, somebody's partner. The less they know, the more useful the third task becomes.

Not the person who did the work, who will supply missing context from memory without noticing.

And not somebody who will be encouraging. The instruction has to make criticism the job, or you will receive reassurance.

The instruction that works

Give them one hour, the criteria, the entry, and three specific tasks.

"Do not fix the writing. Tell me which answer goes with which criterion, mark every claim that has no evidence, and circle anything you did not understand."

Specific tasks produce specific answers. "What do you think?" produces "it reads well", which is worthless and is what most second readers are asked for.

What to do with what comes back

Fix the mismatches first, which are the most expensive failure.

Then the unevidenced claims — either supply the evidence or remove the claim, and removing is a legitimate outcome that frees words.

Then the incomprehensible parts, briefly, since explanation costs words the answer needs — and the passes have an order.

And do not argue with any of it. A reader who did not understand something did not understand it, which is a fact about the document.

When to do it

With time to act on it.

A second reading three days before the deadline produces findings you cannot address, which is worse than none — it supplies anxiety without remedy.

A fortnight out, when evidence can still be gathered and a testimonial still requested.

And three days before submitting for the administrative check, which is a different exercise and belongs to somebody methodical rather than somebody critical.

Reading somebody else's entry

The reciprocal arrangement, and it is the best education available.

Reading an entry against criteria you did not write teaches what a judge experiences — including how quickly you start skimming, which is the finding that changes your own writing most.

Note what you skipped. That is what to remove from yours.

And note where you had to hunt for the answer, which is the failure that costs points invisibly.

Two people in different sectors reading each other's entries once a year is an arrangement that costs an hour each and improves both.

The reader who is too close

A colleague who worked on the project supplies the missing context from memory and reports that everything is clear.

Not carelessness — they cannot unknow what they know, and neither can you.

Which is why the third task matters most from an outsider, and why an internal review and an external one are different exercises rather than duplicates.

Do both where possible. The colleague catches factual errors; the outsider catches everything else.

Paying for it

Entry consultancies offer review as well as writing, at a lower cost than a full entry.

Legitimate work, and the same caution applies: a reviewer cannot supply evidence you do not have, and where the review reports that the evidence is thin, that is the finding rather than a failure of the review.

Establish what they will do — the three tasks above, or a rewrite — since the two are priced differently and confused frequently.

The check that is not a reading

Somebody methodical against the administrative list, three days before submitting.

Every attachment present, every mandatory field completed, every word limit respected, the format correct, the category right.

This is the check that prevents the failures that end an entry before scoring and it is a different job from the critical read — and frequently a different person.

Where you have nobody

Do the tasks yourself with distance.

Leave the entry for three days and return to it printed, which supplies some of what another reader supplies.

Then run the three tasks deliberately — match answers to criteria, mark unevidenced claims, circle anything an outsider would query — rather than reading it through and feeling reassured.

It is weaker than a second reader and it finds most of the same things, provided the three days actually pass.

Thanking them

Tell them what changed as a result.

"You spotted that the impact section had no figures — I got two from the client and it is a different answer now."

One message, and the next request is easy — which matters, because the same person is worth asking again next year.

In one line

Give them three tasks and an hour, and the review is worth more than five people saying it reads well.

The short version

• A second reader is not a proofreader, and "have a look over it" produces the least useful thing they could give
• Three tasks: match answers to criteria, mark claims without evidence, and circle anything not understood
• Ask somebody who does not work on the thing, since the less they know the more useful the third task becomes
• The instruction must make criticism the job, or you receive reassurance
• Fix mismatches first, then unevidenced claims, then comprehension — and do not argue with any of it
• Do it a fortnight out, when evidence can still be gathered, rather than three days before the deadline