It doesn't seem possible to examine the language the aff uses to explain why the plan should happen without considering the policy reasons they give. Examining that language, or that thinking, is considering policy. Good kritiks make the plan indefensible even to a decision-maker with the actual power to adopt the plan. The force of logically prior arguments cannot be ignored. A construction of reality that is wrong enough to justify voting negative renders policy reasons irrelevant, incoherent or immoral.
Nothing here is set in stone except for the part about flowing.
I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative proposal or framework versus those of the negative position. Explain why your advantage or disadvantage is more likely, more realistic, happens sooner, subsumes your opponent s arguments, etc. Show your evidence has a specific scenario not accounted for by your opponent's argument, your evidence reflects a newer situation, your evidence undercuts an assumption in your opponent's argument, etc. I want thesis statements before each position. I want you to read your evidence clearly and persuasively.