https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review#Reception_by_academics_and_researchers has lots of relevant links and citations, e.g.

Noone C, et al. Critically appraising the cass report: methodological flaws and unsupported claims. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 May 10;25(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7. PMID: 40348955; PMCID: PMC12065279.

Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews.

Hi! I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for but we have a critical commentary from the International Journal of Transgender health investigating the robustness of the Review in our page: https://hrtscience.info/trans_research/26895269_2024_2362304