◇ Could this help me?
Yes. The three checks are unusually good because each one is answerable in seconds and each catches a different failure: the disagreement check catches work that was never read, the one-sentence check catches work with no point, and the substitutability check catches work with no author. The framing that the real cost is credibility rather than productivity is also the correct diagnosis, since the sender gets the apparent output and the reader absorbs the cost of extracting nothing from it. General practice, with one small accuracy note: the term comes from published research and commentary rather than being announced by a university on its own, so the attribution in the video is loose, which changes nothing about whether the checks work.
Before I send anything you helped me write, run three checks on it and be blunt. One: what in here would a knowledgeable reader actually disagree with, and if the answer is nothing, tell me the draft is too hedged to say anything. Two: summarize the whole thing in one sentence, and if you cannot, tell me the draft has no point and what the point should be. Three: tell me what in this is specific to me, my situation, or my judgment, and what anyone with a similar prompt would have produced. Then cut everything that fails all three, even if that leaves it much shorter.