I built a small auditor that checks a marketing email against the CAN-SPAM rules and quotes the regulation for every finding. Every quote was verified, so I thought it was safe. The judges' feedback found the hole in one line: "a citation that resolves but points at the wrong thing is the exact failure this competition is hunting." My checker confirmed each quote existed somewhere in the reference files. It never checked that the quote sat under the section the finding cited. Cite the wrong section, keep the right words, and it still printed "quote verified". The rebuild checks each quote only inside the provision its citation names. Before writing any code, I committed eight questions taken from the feedback, so the test couldn't drift toward the answer. The original passes 2 of 8 and the rebuild passes 8 of 8. Those are questions I wrote myself, so the score isn't independent, and the repo says so. The results file also lists what's still weak. One check is a word list, and it gets "your account number is not needed" wrong because it can't read negation. I'd rather publish that than have someone find it. If you're running any AI step that cites a source (a policy, a contract, a style guide), the same hole is probably there. Checking that the words exist is the easy test. The useful one checks that they're where the citation says. Try it yourself: take one cited output, change only the section number, and run your check again. If it still passes, you're checking existence, not location. Question for the comments: what are you citing in your builds, and how do you check it? Free, MIT, nothing to sign up for: https://github.com/NFTYoginis/can-spam-auditor-rebuild

Been going to pitches with my colleagues. Been making a lot of connections (and mistakes). Pitching is hard. It's hard to take them where we want. It's hard to organize as a team. But every day we get better. Thankfully Ry provides an awsome blueprint to follow. Much love boss.

Most tests of a folder compare it to nothing: a fresh chat with no folder and no document. The folder wins, and we call that proof. I ran the case that usually gets skipped. Same model, same nine questions, three arms: - No document, no folder: 1/9 and 0/9. - The document pasted in, no folder: 9/9 and 9/9. - The full folder in a Claude Project: 9/9 and 9/9. On three held-out questions graded by hand, the document alone and the folder both scored 3/3. The folder's only measurable differences were its section tags and one safety sentence. The accuracy came from the document. That changed how I build. The folder earns its place when there is routing to do: several stages, several files, a reader who has to find the right one. For one reference document and a question, paste the document. The repo keeps everything, including three discarded runs and why they were thrown out. The commit order is the proof: the questions and the scorer were committed before any arm ran, so nothing was tuned to the result. Try it yourself: pick one folder you're proud of. Before you claim it helps, run the arm with just its main document pasted into a clean chat. If that ties, your folder's job is routing, and you can judge it on that. Question for the comments: has anyone run the document-only control on their own setup? I'd like to know whether mine was the odd one out. Free and open: github.com/NFTYoginis/jdm-the-control

I took most of the day off yesterday in that I didn't go onto my computer. Which means...I didn't audit Fred & I didn't put out a friendly reminder :( I'm doing that meow' & apparently Big Mac (pictured) isn't impressed, he's fallen asleep on my shoulder watching Fred work. Did you run your audit yesterday? -> https://github.com/oathdriven/rymac-4r-icm-audit It's better late than never. Always got your back, RyMac

I'm trying to figure out how to get more people to my website. It's not techy or an agency that builds for others. It provides encouragement and helpful information (products too) for women who are going through difficult seasons in life as well as some faith based content (gratitude, trusting God, etc.). I don't want to pitch to the folks who would use the material right now. I actually want to pitch to the people who know people who would benefit from the material. Does that make sense? Think: ministers, family counselors, support groups, hospice workers, etc. How do I do it in a way that doesn't seem salesy?