# Critical reading: understand an expert's reasoning

> Compare expert opinions by scope, evidence, assumptions and uncertainty. Learn why different scores are not automatically comparable.

Canonical HTML: [https://orbitrum.io/academy/critical-reading/](https://orbitrum.io/academy/critical-reading/)

A score is not a substitute for understanding an assessment. This track helps you read the question, evidence, assumptions and uncertainty behind an author's conclusion before comparing it with another view.

## Start here

[How to interpret disagreement between experts](/academy/critical-reading/interpreting-expert-disagreement/)

Use a comparison worksheet to align the object, scope and date of two assessments. Then distinguish disagreement over a fact from disagreement over its meaning, an assumption or the objective of the review.

## What you will practice

Read a score according to its stated meaning instead of treating it as a probability. Recognize when several articles repeat one source. Attribute a view accurately and write a synthesis that preserves unresolved differences.

The method is a reading aid, not a system for automatically ranking experts or averaging their scores.

## Choose your perspective

**For experts:** make the assumptions and update conditions visible so readers can examine how your view was formed.

**For readers:** compare arguments fairly without requiring every author to answer an identical question.

## Continue the learning path

Consult [Orbitrum's published methodology](/knowledge-hub/trust-methodology/) for the platform's own explanations. Practice on the [applied filing example](/academy/applied-cases/nvidia-filing-analysis/), then [discover experts](/?mode=experts) and read the work available under their offers.