Review of literature IS NOT a list of thesis points, or arguments. You are not reviewing opinions or positions. A review of literature is a review paper or a component part of a larger report, such a dissertation, a scholarly or a scientific report. You are describing and/or defining parameters for the current state of knowledge of a particular subject before YOU ADD SOMETHING NEW.
Note that in a review of literature, you are updating your reader on the existing state-the breakthroughs and the failures or limitations-not filling them in, which is to say, ADDING. Your subject area will be narrow in scope, unless you are writing an encyclopedic article.
This review of the current state of knowledge may include [1] findings if you are dealing with scientific information gathered from experiments; [2] methodological considerations; or [3] theoretical claims you may or may not agree with it but find useful or pertinent to the specific problem/or need an for which you are trying to find a solution.
The basic idea of research is TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION to knowledge or "What has been done?" which requires a careful, detailed, well-reasoned overview of past contributions, usually by others. However, it may also include your past contributions, or "What you may have done?" if you have a track record in the subject area of concern.
You may also consider the question of "What needs to be done?" for the solution, or for the need to be satisfied by you or anyone addressing it. Ultimately you are narrowing down the scope of your inquiry to "What you are going to do?" not broadly but in a specific research project. The outcome may yield a partial or limited answer.
You can think of the REVIEW OF LITERATURE as a set of source materials that is thoughtfully organized [prioritized] according to what you wish to study and contribute to. How you prioritize your review is of paramount importance but you need to keep in mind the functional purpose of your review, as well as the underlying assumptions. Hence, you may wish to fill in the gaps in someone's conclusions or question their concepts based on findings. You may also question their methodological assumptions or system of gathering or evaluating evidence/data.