@Gabriel Azoulay "The mirror stops resetting. It starts remembering who stood in front of it yesterday." That line just became part of how I explain this. Thank you for that. What you're describing is exactly what I've been building — not as theory but as a daily operating system. Every session I have with AI lives inside a persistent environment: version-controlled context, memory that carries forward, a structure that holds the clarity so I don't have to re-derive it each morning. The interaction sharpens because the foundation doesn't reset. You named the gap I hadn't made explicit in the paper. Adaptive Transfer carries the skill forward to new tools — but you're right, there's a ring past it. What you're pointing at is something closer to Compounding Structure: the system itself improving on its own improvements. Not just the human getting sharper — the environment getting sharper with them. That's where I think the real leverage lives. Not in a single sharp session. In a system that accumulates — where each interaction adds to the context, the structure gets tighter, and the mirror gets more accurate over time because it's been calibrated by every exchange before it. The practitioner who builds that environment doesn't just use AI better. They compound. What does yours look like? I'm genuinely curious how you've structured the version control side. Would love to connect and partner on a stronger version of this if you're game!

@Stacey Lubowa Just posted the paper in the community! Check out it out!

@Vit Brown Thank you! Just posted a paper in the community showing the "methods into practice" - just in an educational sense, less of a technical sense. Still applicable to anyone interacting with AI today!

Before I build a single prompt, I run what I call the Wormhole Method. A wormhole collapses the distance between two points in space. This collapses the distance between a raw thought and a precise, executable prompt. Most people go straight to the prompt. That's the mistake. You're building on half-formed thought and wondering why the output is half-useful. The Wormhole has three layers: SCOPE — a thinking lens I developed that gives your thoughts a container before you ever open your mouth. Situation, Current State, Outcome, Parameters, Evaluate by/Execute/Extra. You think within it before you dump anything. Context Dump — once SCOPE is your guardrail, you speak freely within it. Voice-first (Whisper Flow, or just the mic options), no filter, no editing. Clear the mental buffer completely. Prompt Framework (Like Jake's here) → Execution — now you build the prompt from a position of clarity, calibrated to the native language of whatever tool is executing it. Claude speaks differently than Lovable. Lovable speaks differently than Figma. Tool taxonomy matters. SCOPE → Context Dump → Prompt → Execute. Happy to go deeper on any of these if useful.

HELLO CLIEF NOTES COMMUNITY! Super excited to be here. I'm also apart of the AAA Group with Liam Ottley, and between these two communities and YouTube channels I have learned at such an accelerated level that I can't get enough of these communities! A bit about me... 1. I'm an AI Enablement Lead embedded in the sales org at a large Customer Experiece/CCaaS company focused on AI and a former K-12 engineering education teacher. My job is basically to help people understand how to actually interacte AI, not just be a user. I teach them how to orchestrate the tools available, leveling up from user to orchestrator. 2. I stumbled across Jake's YouTube channel and one specific short about replacing employees with AI and going bankrupt and it stopped me cold because I'm literally watching that play out at my company right now. Which I find ironic becuase they've been in the AI game since 2017. I've been pushing for AI enablement internally for 18+ months before leadership finally made it a priority. Jake put into words what I've been trying to get my leadership to understand for over a year. That was enough for me to subscribe and join the community. 3. How to have the right conversations with leadership. I have the knowledge, I've proven the value (got promoted in under a year after going through the AAA group with Liam Ottley), but I'm still near the bottom of the totem pole. I can see where things are heading and I keep getting told to stay in my lane. What I'm trying to figure out is how to position myself so that my voice actually carries weight — with or without the title to back it up. Looking forward to networking with the same minded people here in this community! Cheers, Colin

@Jake Van Clief wow! Thank you for the validation and explanation. I just connected with a previous professor of mine who helped me better understand how to position a conversation around $$ and impact. Between your breakdown and her's I now know how to construct a deck to show value in their language. I appreciate your response! I love learning from you and your content.