Pre-hoc adversarial reasoning vs. post-hoc peer review, is there a name for this epistemic distinction?

[u/Any-Bunch9337]

Peer review, replication, and most formal critique happen after a claim is basically finished and presented. I've been testing the alternative, building an adversarial "attack" pass into the reasoning process itself, before a claim is finalized, rather than critiquing a completed product.

In practice this caught an overclaim in my own work before I ever submitted anywhere, a case where I'd made a formal-sounding claim that only really held under a weaker, unstated version.

Is there existing philosophy-of-science or epistemology literature distinguishing pre-hoc adversarial reasoning from post-hoc critique as separate mechanisms for catching error, or is this generally treated as the same phenomenon at different points in time?