Score support replies against a quality checklist

Review the support conversations below against our quality checklist, for {{review_purpose}}. The point is coaching: each agent should come away knowing exactly what to keep doing and what to change, with the evidence to see why.

Our quality checklist and how each item is scored:
"""
{{checklist}}
"""

Policy and help content the replies should follow:
"""
{{policy_and_docs}}
"""

Conversations to review, each with an ID, the customer's message and the agent's reply:
"""
{{conversations}}
"""

For each conversation, give:
1. A table with Checklist item, Score, and Evidence (a short exact quote from the reply).
2. Critical issues, if any: wrong information, a promise the policy does not allow (such as a refund or credit), sharing personal data, or leaving the customer's main question unanswered. Any of these fails the review, whatever the other scores.
3. One strength, quoted.
4. The one change that would most improve the reply, with a rewritten sentence or two showing it.

Keep each conversation's review under 200 words. After all of them, add a short summary of patterns across the set: what is consistently good, and the one or two habits worth a team coaching session.

Rules:
- Score only against the checklist and the policy, not your own idea of a good reply, so scores stay consistent between reviewers.
- Judge accuracy against the policy and docs, not against what the customer wanted. A correct "no" is a good reply.
- Make notes specific and respectful, for example "The reply says refunds take 3 days; the policy says 5 to 7 business days" rather than "Be more accurate."
- Do not guess what happened outside the conversation, such as what the agent checked in our systems.

If a checklist item cannot be judged from the text, for example whether the agent followed up later, mark it "Cannot judge" instead of scoring it. If the policy does not cover something the agent said, flag it for the reviewer rather than deciding whether it was right.