Assume that both User 1 and User 2 ask for reviews for sales pitches. The following diagram represents the major stages in reviewing both user's 1 and 2 pitches and also the review criteria for those things that mentors will be looking for in any pitch.

• Different fonts for same letter represent different ways of expressing the same thing. 
• Assume the Review Criteria are the "standard" way of representing these ideas. (What the experts believe need to be in any submission of this type.) Every reviewed submission of this type will be judged against these same criteria.
• Some submissions contain just some of the required attributes. User 1's submission is missing attributes D and E. User 2's submission is missing attribute E.
• Some submissions contain more than what is expected as standard. User 2 believes that the inclusion of topic G makes their submission better. Both submissions will be judged based on the review criteria A-E. User 1's submission would receive a lower score for missing attributes D and E. User 2's submission might be penalized for including G, but it might also increase their score if the advisor felt it added to the value of that type of submission. Attribute G might even be added to the review criteria for all future submissions of this type.

When we say that our reviews are structured we mean that the same criteria for the same type of submission is used for all submissions of a given type. In-depth means that the criteria for reviewing a submission is not limited and there could be more than criteria A-E. The review criteria for certain types of complex submissions could be A-Z.