Sounds like a clever chessboard in print. I’d start by cataloguing each opening line, scoring its clarity on a 1–10 scale, then trace the counter‑moves. The panel that drops a rhetorical fallacy gets a 0, while a witty antithesis earns an 8. Then I’ll map the flow: where the reader is pulled into a trap, where the hero flips the script, and how many turns the conversation actually goes. I’ll give the whole thing a composite score, note any missed opportunities, and probably jot a quick diagram of the hierarchy of arguments. Ready to dive in.