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 should you handle a mistake that came from AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the population check, which is what makes this different from ordinary error handling and which the draft omitted while focusing on the communication. A systematic error is a set rather than an instance, and correcting only what was noticed leaves the rest in place. |
| How should you run an AI agent for several hours? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft described how to sustain one long session. Replaced with consecutive short runs after establishing that the degradation is a property of accumulation rather than something to be managed, which changes the architecture rather than the technique. Added the unattended permission question, which the draft carried over from supervised operation without noticing the difference. |
| Should a coding agent write the tests? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft answered no on independence grounds. That is wrong in a specific and fixable way — the problem is ordering rather than authorship — so the answer reversed. Added the implementation-asserting defect, which is the practical thing to review generated tests for and which coverage metrics actively reward. |
| How should you structure a project for a coding agent? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft was a list of code hygiene practices, which are good advice and do not answer the question asked. Rebuilt around evaluation cost, which is what actually distinguishes a codebase where agent work pays from one where it does not. Added the legacy answer, since most readers are not starting from a clean repository. |
| Should AI have write access to your CRM? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the creation-versus-update distinction, which the draft did not address and which reverses the usual assumption in one specific way: creation is safer except for duplication, where the damage from a split customer history exceeds any single field error. |
| Should an AI agent explain its reasoning? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft recommended requiring explanations as a transparency measure. Split into two operations after considering what an explanation actually is as an artefact, which reverses the advice for the narrative half. Added the plan-before-work distinction so the page does not read as an argument against asking an agent to think out loud, which is a different and defensible practice. |
| Should research and implementation be handled by different agents? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft argued for specialised agents. Corrected to sessions after establishing that the same system does both jobs and the gain comes entirely from the context profile, which changes what a reader should build. Added the first-workable-approach point, which is a second and independent reason for the break. |
| Should verification be performed by a separate agent? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft recommended a separate reviewer without specifying what it should see. That is the whole variable, so the page now turns on withholding the originating reasoning. Added the prohibition on the reviewer fixing its own findings, which is the obvious efficiency and destroys the independence that justified the arrangement. |
| Should an agent ask clarifying questions before starting? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft answered yes and described how to prompt for good questions. Replaced with the restatement after establishing that questions only cover noticed ambiguity, which excludes the failure that matters. Kept the blocking question for genuinely missing inputs, since a restatement cannot resolve a fact that exists nowhere. |
| Should you buy an AI tool or build the workflow yourself? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the hybrid as the primary recommendation rather than as a compromise, since it is what the two-sided test actually implies once the general and specific parts are separated. Also added the evaluation question about error handling, which does more to distinguish products than any capability comparison and appears in none of them. |
| Should you start a new AI session or continue the old one? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Cut a duration guideline. Session decay tracks material ingested rather than elapsed time, so any duration rule would be wrong in both directions and would be copied precisely because it is easy to apply. Added the phase-change reason, which is a restart trigger unrelated to degradation and was absent from the draft. |
| Should you tell clients you use AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the engagement terms answer, which resolves the recurring version of this question in advance and is cheaper than deciding case by case. Also separated the commercial reaction from the ethical question, because conflating them is how firms end up deciding a disclosure question on the basis of how a client might feel. |
| Should you use a model to grade a model? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the requirement to validate the grader against known-bad cases. Without it the page recommends adding an unmeasured measurement device, which is how teams end up confident in a number that has never caught anything. Cut a proposed scoring scale for the same reason the page argues against scores. |
| Should you use AI to make a decision? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the routing exception explicitly, because the page's argument applied uniformly would forbid the automated categorisation that most of this corpus recommends. The distinguishing property is whether a consequence is borne per instance, and stating it keeps the page consistent with the rest. |
| What AI workflows are useful for a business with fifty employees? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the governance paragraph after noticing that everything else on the page is about workflows while the characteristic failure at this size is an unmapped estate. Also added the counter-case in the closing question, since building for a process that varies by team is the specific way larger small businesses waste this effort. |
| What AI workflows are useful for a professional services firm? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Sorted the candidate workflows by whether they intercept senior time rather than by how much work they touch, which demotes several commonly recommended internal tools. Added the inherited-commitment check on proposals, which is the specific failure of assembling from prior work and is invisible in a general review. |
| What AI is useful for a trades business with no office staff? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Kept the observation that the highest-return items require no model, despite it sitting oddly on a page about AI, because omitting it would recommend a more complex solution to a problem a scheduled message solves. Added the maintenance constraint, which is the reason clever arrangements fail specifically in this kind of business. |
| What AI workflows are useful for a business with five employees? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Rebuilt around the two structural weaknesses of this size rather than listing generally useful workflows, which would have made the page indistinguishable from any other small-business list. The concentration constraint in particular changes which workflows matter and is not addressed by anything on a standard list. |
| What belongs in project instructions versus task instructions? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the third location. The draft presented a binary and the strongest available answer for many rules is neither file but a structure that makes the rule unnecessary, which changes what a reader does with a third of their instruction list. Cut a worked example that would have been read as a template. |
| What belongs in the main agent versus a worker agent? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Cut a proposed hierarchy diagram, which encodes a particular arrangement and would be copied rather than derived. Added the acceptance test, which resolves most real cases in one question and does more work than the general principle it summarises. Also added the prohibition on worker state writes, absent from the draft and the source of the messiest failures. |
| What can AI do with your website that is actually useful? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft led with a chat widget and content generation, which are the two most-built and least-useful options. Reordered around enquiry analysis, which uses a resource the business already has and produces a specification rather than volume. Kept the chat interface with the condition under which it is justified rather than dismissing it. |
| What can an AI agent not do? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | The draft listed current capability gaps, which would have been wrong within a year and would have encouraged the reader to design around temporary conditions. Restructured entirely around the moving-versus-structural split. Added the closing correction, since a page listing limits invites over-reading and the under-use error is the more expensive one. |
| What can an AI agent safely do in a medical practice? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Confirmed against the Department of Health and Human Services guidance that the agreement requirement applies to processing and storage services and is not waived by encryption, which is the point practices most often assume the other way. Removed a list of named products, which dates and which cannot be evaluated without knowing the plan. |
| What changes about AI in hiring depending on where you operate? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the point that the covered-tool definition can capture informal use, which is the case a small business is most likely to be in and least likely to consider. Also stated that ordinary discrimination law applies regardless, since a page about specific rules invites the inference that compliance with them is the whole obligation. |
| What changes about managing a team that uses AI? | Answer | Answer Production Engine | 2026-08-25 | Added the tooling-inconsistency change, which the draft omitted and which produces the management symptom people report first: two people doing the same job differently for reasons neither can articulate. Also closed with the point that most of this is ordinary management, since a page listing four changes invites the conclusion that a new discipline is required. |
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 0 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.