I'd like to clarify, what I do is more like a book critique than a review, as there is a difference, but there's a particular definition I'm adhering to which is the reason the book title remains reviews. 

I went to EXPEDIAA for the definition:

Difference Between Critique and Review Writer

Critique is written by a critic.

A review is written by a reviewer.

Knowledge of the Field

A critic is an expert in a particular field.

A reviewer is a person who has an interest in a particular topic.

Content

Critique may contain in-depth analysis of the separate components of the work or theory.

A review may contain general information, overall impression, and personal opinion.

Reliability

Critiques can be more reliable than reviews.

Reviews may not be reliable as critiques.

Goal

Critique may analyse a work technically, scientifically or academically.

A Review is more consumer-oriented.

Ease of Access

Critique may not be read and understood by everyone.

A review can be read and understood by anyone.

For the most part, these are critiques because I focus on weak areas and address, point them out, with ways to improve and approach certain issues. 

However, it remains as a review because for 

1.  I'm not a critic. I'm a writer. 

2.  I'm not an expert—and I don't want to mislead those reading my 'critiques' to believe so either. 

These are more critique oriented than anything, however, for the reasons above it remains as a review. Also because for the most part, these are all '[my] overall impression[s] and personal opinion[s]'.

Now that that's been cleared up, the reviews will resume. I've just realised that not 4 reviews go by before there's an interval where I publish a chapter that's not a review. Comment 'We can see that' here so I know you've read this chapter.

I only did this because I felt the need to clear it up.