An important question that I having been working to formulate.
Given that no response has been posted here for two months and I identify as a communist rather than an anarchist myself, I guess the answer to your question, so far, is no.
(I have not read this but might be useful: http://libcom.org/blog/terrain-encounter-social-anarchism-communisation-08112012
The only critiques I have been able to find are from other communists.
Another problem is that all the communization theory I have come across directly situates itself around the 'question of communization' and thus does not claim any kind of coherence or agreement between the various groups. Before a general critique of communization could be made, a sketch of what is shared by all the the communisateurs is needed. Thats what I'd like to do eventually but I wont attempt it here. Instead I'll summarize some of the things I've been reading.
The communist critiques of communization I know of fall along two general poles:
1)an attack on a specific group as a representative of all communization theory coming from apologists of workers' power or a transitional period (Leninist, Maoist, Councilist, Situ, etc). Thats where I would situate the Not-Bored Critique I think (having skimmed it), as well as this critique: http://libcom.org/forums/theory/communist-critique-communization-theory-19042012
The most interesting critique in this category (as well as the debate in the comments) is Mathijs Kruls' "Endnotes: A Romantic Critique?". http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11909
Krul points out the continuity between communization theory (via Endnotes) and the big C communist tradition: "this was a problem of which even the earliest Marxists were well aware, as shown for example by Lenin’s discussions of the Russian Revolution’s 'state capitalism', or the ill-fated ‘two stages’ view of first-socialism-then-communism, the Maoist emphasis on the persistence of bourgeois relations after the revolution, and so forth."
One useful thing for an anarchist in these critiques is that, insofar as your antagonism towards these organizational forms of communism is shared by the communisateurs, some reproachment or finding common ground is possible between anarchist thought and whichever communization theorist is being critiqued.
For example, you can take the below critique as a positive aspect of communization (Krul intends anarchism as a dis):
"The practical critique of all capital’s mediation seems to leave us with nothing but sabotage for its own sake — the politics of fin-de-siècle anarchism and nihilism."
2) 'Friendly' critiques between groups from within communization, in SIC or elsewhere. Here I would include "Limit Analysis and its Limits" in SIC 2.
An excellent place to look is in the journal, Letters, which as an 'anti-political communist journal', undermines/questions many of the assumptions of the economic and structuralist mode common to many communization theorists.
Two pieces that have been especially useful for me for getting outside of the communization headspace have been:
a)"Reflexions around Call" in Letters III, which articulates a critique of the description of immediate communism in Tiqqun's "Call" as practices which are entirely possible within capitalism, as a kind of self-ghetto-ization, what the writer calls 'alternativism'. Instead, for the writer communism must not be entirely realizable in the present but on another horizon beyond the limitations of the present.
b) "Letter to Pan Sloboda" in Letters IV, which asks the question 'are communizing measures possible at all?' Or in other words, is there really a link between communizing measures in the present (expropriations, auto-reduction, interventions into distribution) and a future communism as a global condition?
Of course, an anarchist critique could come from entirely different places. For instance, I can imagine a critique of Communization based on a rejection of sociological forms/ scientific certainty/reason entirely. Or for what could possibly be a rejustification of the figure of the militant. Or a egoist/individualist critique of massification, however self-abolitionary. Or on the retention of the word Communism at all, if communization is in fact just a means to anarchy.
Hope some of this made sense!