Method
Editorial log
Every published page on this site, who reviewed it, when, and what the review changed.
Scaled content is penalised when it is published without review. Rather than assert that review happens, the record is kept here and the build will not publish a page whose review block is missing or dated before the page was written.
One collection is reviewed differently and the table says so rather than hiding it. Market pages carry no third-party figure — every publishable fact on one is a named authority, a section number, an institution or a link — so each is checked by retrieving the source and searching it, and the URL, the status, the hash and the matched passage are recorded. A field that cannot be established that way is dropped; a page whose required fields cannot be is not published. Everything that carries a figure somebody else measured is still read by a person before it ships.
| Page | Type | Reviewed by | Reviewed | What the review changed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How legal practices identify and secure client engagements in Urban Honolulu | Geography | Geo Verification Engine | 2026-08-27 | Verified by machine under ARCHITECTURE.md §2.2 rather than read by a person: every publishable fact on this page was checked against a source retrieved from www.courts.state.hi.us, hsba.org, realproperty.honolulu.gov before it was written, and every proposed field that failed its check was dropped rather than published. The record — the URL, the HTTP status and the sha256 of each document read, and the passage each check matched — is at engine/geo/verifications/legal/. |
| Can a firm use client work to improve its own AI tools? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a proposed consent clause. Publishing drafting language for a permission this page argues should be obtained deliberately would have produced the boilerplate consent that fails, and firms would have inserted it without the conversation that makes it worth anything. |
| Can a law firm bill a client for time AI saved? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a paragraph arguing that firms should move to fixed fees. The page's job is to state what the fee rule permits, and a recommendation about pricing strategy was doing the reader's commercial thinking for them on evidence the page does not carry. Replaced it with the fixed-fee contrast, which explains why the question only arises under hourly billing. |
| Can a law firm use AI to run a conflicts check? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Softened a claim that no firm should connect a conflicts database to a hosted tool. The confidentiality question turns on the terms of the specific arrangement, and a blanket prohibition would have been stated more confidently than the evidence supports. Added the small-firm answer, which inverts the conclusion for firms whose history is not indexed at all. |
| Can a practice use AI to reply to a patient review? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed the enforcement penalty figures. They price a decision that should not be priced — the correct behaviour is the same at any settlement amount — and citing them invited a practice to weigh a public correction against a number. The asymmetry paragraph does the work instead. |
| Can a practice use an AI scribe in the exam room? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a claim that ambient scribes reduce documentation time by a stated proportion. The figures in circulation come from vendor studies with undisclosed populations and the page does not need one to make its argument. The coding paragraph was added in its place, which is the measurable effect a practice can check in its own data. |
| Can AI write a listing description without a fair housing problem? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a list of flagged phrases. Publishing one would have recreated the word-list approach the page argues against, and any list would be treated as exhaustive by exactly the readers who most need the general test instead. |
| Can AI write or change a quality record? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Reordered so the competence clause follows the control clause directly. In the first draft the prohibition read as an assertion about machines, and the standard's own reason for it — that approval is evidenced against a person's training record — appeared two paragraphs later, where it looked like supporting detail rather than the argument. |
| Can an accounting firm put client tax information into an AI tool? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed the penalty amounts. They are set by statute and adjusted, they were not what changes a preparer's behaviour, and stating them invited a reader to price the risk rather than avoid it. Kept the fact that the provision is criminal, which is the part that changes how the rule is weighed. |
| Can an AI agent answer a customer's technical question about a part? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a paragraph on disclaimers. A notice saying answers are indicative does not defeat reliance where a buyer reasonably acted on a specific statement, and presenting it as a control would have encouraged exactly the deployment the rest of the page argues against. |
| Can an AI tool screen a rental applicant? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a comparison of named screening products. Their factor sets are not published in a form that supports comparison, so the section was describing marketing material as though it were specification. The auditability paragraph now states what to ask a vendor instead, which is the same information obtained from the party who has it. |
| Can you put export-controlled drawings into an AI tool? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed named vendors offering government or defence-region environments. The availability and the boundaries of those offerings change on their own timetable, and naming them invited a reader to treat a region label as an answer to a question about who holds decryption keys. The scoping paragraph was expanded in its place. |
| Can you use AI voice tools with Illinois customers? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed the statutory damages figures and a summary of pending litigation. The damages number encourages readers to price the risk and the litigation summary would date within a quarter, while the technical distinction the page rests on has been stable since the statute was written. |
| Does a practice have to tell patients when a message was written by AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a state-by-state table. It would have been incomplete on the day it published and stale within two quarters, and it distracted from the finding that actually transfers between states, which is that the review exemption makes the drafting tool irrelevant to the obligation. |
| Does an AI vendor need a business associate agreement? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a list of which vendors currently offer agreements. It would have been wrong within a quarter and it is the part a practice can establish in one email, while the parts that stay true — the subcontractor chain and the tier mismatch — were originally a single sentence. Both are now paragraphs. |
| Does Florida's privacy law apply to a small business using AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Added the closing sequence after review found the page proved a negative and stopped. Establishing that a statute does not apply is only useful if the reader is then pointed at the ones that do, and without it the page's most likely effect was a reader concluding they had nothing to do. |
| Does Texas's AI law apply to your business? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut the civil penalty bands. They price a risk that arrives through an attorney general enquiry with a cure period attached, so quoting them made the statute sound like a litigation exposure it is structurally not. The cure mechanism replaced them. |
| How do you decide which AI tool a piece of work belongs in? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a capability comparison across product categories. It was the least durable material on the page and it sat where the argument says capability belongs last, which undercut the ordering the page exists to establish. |
| How do you find out whether an AI vendor trains on your data? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a comparison of three named vendors' current terms. Those change without notice and the page would have been quietly wrong while looking authoritative, which is worse than not answering. The three-question split and the document hierarchy are what survive a terms revision. |
| How do you give an AI agent access to a shared calendar? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Cut a section on conflict detection algorithms. It was engineering detail for a problem the calendar system already solves, and it displaced the buffers paragraph, which is where automated booking actually goes wrong and which no conflict check catches. |
| How do you undo something an AI agent did? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a staged trust model in which an agent earns wider permissions over time. The action categories do not change as confidence grows, and the model would have licensed exactly the escalation into irreversible actions that the last paragraph argues against. |
| How should a broker supervise agents using AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Replaced a state-by-state summary of supervision statutes with the general duty and a pointer to the reader's own act. The variation is real but not in a direction that changes the answer, and the page was becoming a reference table instead of a decision. |
| How should you answer a customer who asks if AI handled their data? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Deleted a template reply. A script would have been used verbatim by businesses that could not fill in the four facts it assumes, producing exactly the unfounded reassurance the fifth paragraph warns about. The four parts are stated instead, so the reply cannot be written without the answers. |
| What does California require when AI makes a decision about someone? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a compliance timeline with several dates on it. The staged dates are real but the page was becoming a calendar, and the obligation that requires the longest lead time — the per-decision record behind the access right — was buried under dates that will have passed. It is now a paragraph of its own. |
| What happens when an AI-generated citation reaches a court filing? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-26 | Removed a list of named sanction incidents. The page would then have depended on a roll of cases that grows monthly and dates the answer within a quarter, while the mechanism it rests on has not moved. Added the unfiled-work paragraph, which is where most firms actually carry this exposure and which no sanctions list would have surfaced. |
What the build refuses to publish.
Four checks run before any page in this system is generated, and each one stops the build rather than producing a warning nobody reads.
A page must name, in writing, what is on it that could not appear unchanged on a sibling page — and no two pages may give the same answer. Independently of that, every page is reduced to a fingerprint with its own subject and place names masked out; if two fingerprints match, or come close, both pages are named and the build stops. That is the check that catches a page whose only distinguishing feature was the city in the heading.
A page must also carry at least two datapoints that are specific to its own subject rather than to its category, and if the same figure is claimed as specific on two different pages, it was specific to neither. Pages ship in cohorts with a size cap so indexation can be observed between them, and every page carries the review block that produces the table above.
All four are properties of the schema, not of anyone remembering. Reviewed by Siddharth Sharma, except the 1 market page(s) above, which are checked against their sources and carry the record of it.
GATES
A gate enforced by a person reading pages stops being enforced somewhere around page 60.