What is this source not saying?

A press release, vendor page, or announcement that reads suspiciously well.

Read the text below for its omissions rather than its content.

1. What question would a sceptical expert ask first, and does the text answer it?
2. Which numbers are conspicuously absent? Denominators, baselines, time periods, costs, sample sizes, comparison to alternatives.
3. Where is the language doing work that the evidence is not: "up to", "designed to", "may help", "industry-leading", "users report"?
4. What is measured here as a proxy for something the author would rather not measure directly?
5. Who benefits if I believe this, and what would they have said differently if the result had been unflattering?

List the three things I should ask for before taking this at face value.

Source:

Reading and synthesis. Getting the substance out of a document, and reconciling sources that do not quite agree.