No. That's totally wrong
Wikipedia:
The purpose of constructive criticism is to improve the outcome. In collaborative work, this kind of criticism is a valuable tool in raising and maintaining performance standards.
Whiteclaws
I now see why you might think that. The Wikipedia definition I read says something different. It reads, "Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one."
That's a more accurate definition. Oxford Dictionary states "constructive" as "serving a useful purpose; tending to build up." You're not building anything up by taking something away or replacing it with a better solution. You "build up" with positive comments. Constructive criticism is meant as a polite way to criticize someone's work in an effort to help them improve.
You can make the argument that it's "constructive" to offer solutions while criticizing work, but that falls apart when that person doesn't accept your solution and takes it as you just making counter arguments as to why they are wrong. Arguing points is not constructive. Aphrodite stated what she thought was wrong and argued what a better solution would be without any positive feedback. That is not constructive. That's simply criticism.
Aphrodite
I don't really take issue with what you said. I think it's fine. I don't see it as overly negative, but it just wasn't positive either. That's not to say it wasn't helpful. I'm certain it was and that you meant well by it. I just took issue with what Whiteclaw defines as "constructive criticism." As an instructor dealing with critiques on a daily basis, I feel it's important to clearly define what constructive criticism is.