Literature Review

So I was told by my advisor to review the control literature for my PHD thesis based upon the following criteria:

1.) Plant Model- what parameters did they use
2.) Task - What are trying to do.
3.) Control- What type of control algorithm have they designed
4.) Stability Analysis - Did they have one, what method did they use?
5.) Simluations: Comparative- Anecdodal
6.) Experiments: Comparative- Anecdodal

Now my response:
1.) You want me to rate their stability analysis? I dont know if the following statement is appropriate:

The authors report the development of an overly complicated control law, using an equation representing the dynamics of the robot that gets rid of all of the inconvient terms. The stability analysis is wrong or simply the author made it so convoluted that I cannot figure out what he was attempting to do. Then the author applied these equations to a set of simulations, and because simulations are doomed to succeed, they showed the robot doing what the author intended it to do. Then the author applied the control algorithm to an actual robot, but since the control algorithm they developed is over complicated they decided to make some simplifications to the control law by getting rid of all the terms that make it either unique or interesting, I should at this point out that the experiments reported is a special case and could be masking significant problems with the algorithm.

But I cant say that. I have to be diplomatic.