1. Summarize the (at most) 3 key main ideas (each in 1 sentence.)
2. State the main contribution of the paper
3. Critique the main contribution
3.a. Rate the significance of the paper on a scale of 5 (breakthrough), 4 (significant contribution), 3 (modest contribution), 2 (incremental contribution), 1 (no contribution or negative contribution). Explain your rating in a sentence or two.
3.b. Rate how convincing the methodology is: do the claims and conclusions follow from the experiments? Are the assumptions realistic? Are the experiments well designed? Are there different experiments that would be more convincing? Are there other alternatives the authors should have considered? (And, of course, is the paper free of methodological errors.)
3.c. What is the most important limitation of the approach?
4. What lessons should system researchers and builders take away from this work. What (if any) questions does this work leave open?