01
Why this publication exists
AI has made it much faster to build a convincing demonstration. It has not made the underlying business decision easier. Someone still has to decide what the system should do, which information it can use, where a person must remain responsible, and what happens when a component fails.
I want this publication to be useful at that decision point. The focus will be the system beneath the tool: purpose, data, workflows, models, permissions, cost, testing, maintenance, and the people accountable for the result.
02
How I will separate a claim from evidence
A product announcement, a demonstration, and a working business system are different things. When that distinction matters, I will make it visible.
- What the developer or vendor claims
- What I directly observed or tested
- What can reasonably be inferred from that evidence
- What I have not verified
- The costs, limits, ownership questions, and failure conditions that affect the decision
03
What belongs here
The subjects will change as the technology changes, but the editorial job will remain stable. I will explain what actually changed, examine how systems fit together, document tests and failures, review useful building blocks, and carry good questions from The Workroom sessions into public notes.
This will not be a stream of product launches or a ranking of whichever model is loudest that week. A tool belongs here when understanding it helps someone make a better decision or build a more durable system.
04
How corrections will work
If I make a consequential factual mistake, I will add a visible correction that explains what changed. I will not quietly rewrite the article in a way that hides the original error.
This standard does not mean every note will be complete. It means uncertainty, missing evidence, and important limits should be clear enough for the reader to judge the work for themselves.