I have never been to AD so on that front I cant offer much, on the other hand I wanted to weigh on on a couple points about the way Bruni constructed his review. Essentially what struck me first off was the way he skewed AD's vanity in decor and presentation. Essentially it seemed as though he was holding AD to a standard that was higher than other four star restaurants do to its appearence and then deducting it down to three stars after missing that expectated lofty standard. I think AD is really in a unique position because it is certainly more gaudy than a restaurant like Per Se and Masa, but does that mean it should be held to a higher standard food wise? I also strongly agree that no restaurant should be held to a standard of sheer consistent perfection in either food or service. I think sometimes we forget that even at restaurants like AD the chefs are still human and if you dine at a restaurant enough (which Im assuming Bruni did, probably 4+ times) it is going to happen. That said, what is the correct guideline of consistency to hold a restaurant to? I think a lot of it depends on the restaurants peer group. The way I see it Bruni probably has a preconcieved consistancy schema based on dining at other 4 star restaurants. Obviously Bruni thought AD fell short in comparison. It is really difficult to make out the extent of the inconsistency because Bruni does not develop the point as well as perhaps he should, considering it forms the crux of his demotion.