all

log.md

@@ -147,3 +147,86 @@ Entry format:
 - Pages updated: [[make-more-cheap-code]] (next-question marked answered, link added), [[leave-less-room-for-imagination]] (new next-question: drift harnessed as a sandboxed ambiguity diagnostic — synthesis, tentative), `index.md` (Queries section).
 - Notes: Pure synthesis, no new source — every mapped pattern is grounded in corpus use cases (Nina/Yulia job descriptions, candidate KB, sourcing; Larysa spec ambiguity; Allie's anti-AI-language checker-skill precedent). Key reframes with durable value: (1) the fresh-agent misread test inverts [[leave-less-room-for-imagination]] — drift becomes a diagnostic when sandboxed; (2) [[solve-first-then-skillify]] populates skills in two species, producers and checkers. Flagged honestly: the whole mapping is argument-by-analogy with no measured claim; Nina's transcript-beats-summary finding is a standing counterweight to summary-based review.
 - Next: decide whether "checker skills" earns a slide on the webinar's skills rung; the webinar-deliverable docs (`Ideas`, `Plan`, `script`, `my theses.md`) remain un-ingested; first lint pass still overdue (9 sources, 18 concepts, 2026-07-24 now has 1 query, 0 lint reports).
+
+## 2026-07-28 — ingest (Agentic Engineering, explained by a 10x developer)
+- Intent: ingest
+- Input: "ingest \"Agentic Engineering, explained by a 10x developer\"" → `raw/sources/Agentic Engineering, explained by a 10x developer.md` (conclusions doc for a 42:33 YouTube interview; Thorsten Ball × David Andre). The densest single source in the vault so far.
+- Pages created — source (1): [[2026-07-28-agentic-engineering-10x-developer]].
+- Pages created — entities (2): [[thorsten-ball]] (founding engineer at AMP; author of the Go interpreter/compiler books), [[amp]] (Sourcegraph's agent — the vault's second reference harness).
+- Pages created — concepts (5): [[shedding-weight]] (delete process that only existed because humans were the bottleneck — backlogs, CI that repeats the agent's tests, IDE extensions, local dev), [[build-for-the-agent-not-the-human]] (no forms; the admin panel that dies; bring your own agent), [[emacsification-of-software]] (fork-and-remix, never upstream; software becomes bespoke), [[explosion-of-internal-software]] (the Excel/wiki/hack layer becomes real tools; skill + token budget as the two dividing variables), [[async-by-default]] (orbs as remote sandboxes; one URL = thread + agent + computation + diff; ask for proof since you're waiting anyway).
+- Pages updated — concepts (10): [[skills-as-memory]] (**the dissent**, plus three competing readings under Contradictions), [[evolution-of-agent-tooling]] ("a fourth position: skip the progression"; A2A partially answered by AMP's agent-to-agent messaging), [[harness]] (AMP as second reference harness; vendor-managed as a third governance option; local-vs-remote tension), [[context-as-scarce-resource]] (information > tuning; the two information sources; context as scarce per-*wallet*), [[code-as-throwaway]] (99%-AI-written production datapoint; slop-is-human), [[make-more-cheap-code]] (variations-not-answers; ask-for-proof; attention-vs-token-budget sharpening), [[product-ownership]] (first-principles as the top skill; the printer/tablet push-back; what got commoditised), [[seniority-and-the-junior-squeeze]] (2–3 years of hand-taught knowledge → 30-second output; "don't compare yourself to the 1%"), [[enterprise-ai-reality]] (token budget as a second divide; why the frontier playbook doesn't transfer), [[leave-less-room-for-imagination]] (his 5-part prompt structure as a worked example; model-choice tension), [[personal-ai-operating-system]] (the fourth layer: tools you build for yourself).
+- Pages updated — entities (2): [[theo-browne]] (ally cross-link), [[claude-code]] (AMP as the contrasting harness design). Plus [[overview]] (9→10 sources; new "frontier side" of the through-line; agree/diverge rewritten; 3 new vault-level open questions) and `index.md`.
+- Notes: **The important thing this source does is contradict the vault's spine.** Thorsten ships a 99%-AI-written codebase with no skills, no MCP servers and no slash commands — his context lives in the codebase and `AGENTS.md`. This is the first credible rejection of the mechanism the webinar's central promise rests on, and the evidential asymmetry favours him (first-hand daily practice at scale vs Konstantin's architecture argument plus self-reported individual workflows). Recorded as three competing readings on [[skills-as-memory]] — situational (he owns one codebase; the HR/BA audience owns none) / premature abstraction / same thing under another name (AMP's vendor-curated sub-agents and `AGENTS.md` *are* two-stage context, just not user-authored). Not smoothed, not resolved. Second-order tensions logged: model choice as lever (Eugene 4.7-over-4.8) vs distraction (Thorsten); local consolidated workspace (Eugene) vs local dev disappearing (Thorsten); shed-your-process (frontier) vs compliance-is-the-deliverable ([[enterprise-ai-reality]]).
+- Also strongly *confirmatory*: the club food-ordering app (menu photo → working app, then ~2 hours of phone typing to encode a 20-person club's ordering process) is the corpus's best outside evidence for the webinar's "little tools you make for yourself" thesis — reached independently, by an engineer, applied to non-technical people. And "slop comes from humans" converges with Theo from a different direction (taste vs verification discipline).
+- New named variable with no answer anywhere in the corpus: **token budget** as one of two winner/loser variables. Elevated to a vault-level open question.
+- All quantities self-reported from inside the company selling the agent (99% figure, the team poll, velocity claims) — flagged tentative throughout. "Local dev is going away" is a prediction from a remote-sandbox vendor — flagged.
+- Housekeeping: corrected the stale `index.md` "not yet ingested" list — those four webinar docs moved to `raw/notes/` (commit 1361dd7) and are authored deliverables, not sources. `raw/sources/` is now fully ingested (10/10).
+- Next: the highest-value move is now a **lint pass** — 10 sources, 24 concepts, 0 lint reports, and this ingest added five concepts plus a live contradiction that touches the spine. Candidate query with real stakes for the webinar: *does the skills rung survive Thorsten's counter-example, and what would test it?* (the cheap experiment — same task with and without a skill, in a non-engineer's hands — has never been run). Also worth considering: a comparison page "Thorsten vs the skills camp", and whether [[shedding-weight]] / [[explosion-of-internal-software]] earn stations on the webinar spine.
+
+## 2026-07-28 — lint (first pass)
+- Intent: lint
+- Input: "lint wiki" — first health check on the vault (10 sources · 24 concepts · 14 entities · 4 queries · 1 comparison · 1 timeline; 0 prior lint reports).
+- Pages created: [[2026-07-28-lint]] (first `wiki/lint-reports/` page).
+- Checks run: page-type tags vs folder + line-3 placement (41/41 pass) · H1 presence (41/41) · required template sections for sources (10/10) and entity/concept pages (38/38) · Evidence sections citing ≥1 source page (38/38) · broken `[[links]]` (0) · orphans (0) · zero-outbound pages (0) · `index.md` ↔ `wiki/concepts/` drift (0, 24/24 in sync) · `raw/` path resolution (5 failures) · contradiction reciprocity · high-mention concepts lacking pages · link-graph inbound/outbound counts.
+- Headline: **structurally clean; the real defects were all staleness of synthesis.** 12 findings, 9 fixed in this pass, 3 left as recommendations because they are scope decisions rather than defects.
+- Fixes applied — references (3): stale `raw/sources/` paths for the four deliverable docs that moved to `raw/notes/` in commit 1361dd7, corrected in [[levels-of-ai-usage]], [[2026-07-22-webinar-theses]] and [[2026-07-14-sebastian-eugene-interview]] (5 refs, reworded "not yet ingested" → "authored deliverable"); [[claude-code]] summary said "cited across all four ingested sources" (written at 4 sources, now 10) — rewritten to a claim that won't rot, noting Thorsten as the sole practitioner on a different harness; [[overview]] open question naming `HR Contacts` (a file that does not exist — corrected in `index.md` on 2026-07-21 but never propagated here) marked resolved.
+- Fixes applied — one-sided contradictions (4): rule 5 requires contradictions be recorded explicitly, and four were logged on one page but not on the page holding the opposing view. Added reciprocal entries to [[think-wider-not-bigger]] (vs tight specs), [[levels-of-ai-usage]] (the skills dissent — its *top rung* is what Thorsten contests), [[personal-ai-operating-system]] (memory-as-anti-feature vs its *layer 1*, plus the skills dissent vs its layer 2), [[skills-as-memory]] (skills-vs-RAG, which its own Summary asserts as settled). L5 and L6 were the consequential ones: in both, the page *making* the contested claim was the page not carrying the objection.
+- Fixes applied — staleness notes (2): [[2026-07-22-webinar-theses]] (synthesized from 7 sources, 10 now exist; thesis 3 "Skills are the new memory" is load-bearing and its counter-example was missing from its own tensions list; nothing from the last two ingests appears) and [[theo-konstantin-allie]] (predates Theo's second source and Thorsten; its closing "none of the three directly contradicts another" now misleads about the skills thread). Both preserved rather than rewritten, per the Update Policy's no-silent-large-rewrites rule.
+- Open findings (not fixed — scope decisions): **(1)** "taste" is the vault's largest uncovered concept — 12 pages / 17 occurrences, one of four nouns in the through-line, the other three all have pages; named the meta-skill by Allie and the whole slop answer by Thorsten; recommend a concept page. **(2)** Query pages are a weakly-linked class (0/1/2/2 inbound); [[2026-07-22-webinar-theses]] is effectively orphaned despite being the most webinar-relevant page in the vault. **(3)** Watch items: [[2026-07-22-ai-is-stupid]] is thinly integrated (2 citing pages vs a median of ~17, plausibly correct since it restates rather than adds); [[emacsification-of-software]] + [[explosion-of-internal-software]] should merge if neither gains second-source support by the next lint. Considered and rejected as a new page: "trust calibration" — covered by [[make-more-cheap-code]] + [[code-as-throwaway]] + [[seniority-and-the-junior-squeeze]]; creating it would duplicate rather than consolidate.
+- Contradiction inventory: 9 live disagreements, now all recorded on both sides. #1 (skills-as-memory vs no-skills-at-all) is the vault's most consequential open question because the webinar's central promise rests on it.
+- Next: refresh [[2026-07-22-webinar-theses]] against all 10 sources (fixes the staleness and most of the weak-linking in one operation, and is the page closest to the deliverable); create the `taste` concept page; extend [[theo-konstantin-allie]] to four lenses. The falsification test flagged on [[skills-as-memory]] — same task with and without a skill, in a non-engineer's hands — remains the cheapest experiment that would move contradiction #1.
+
+## 2026-07-28 — query (webinar theses v2 — refresh)
+- Intent: query
+- Input: "Refresh 2026-07-22-webinar-theses" — acting on the top recommendation from [[2026-07-28-lint]] (v1 was two ingests stale and effectively orphaned).
+- Pages created: [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] (17 theses from all 10 sources + the current deliverable state in `raw/notes/`).
+- Pages updated: [[2026-07-22-webinar-theses]] (staleness note replaced with a **SUPERSEDED** banner summarising what changed and pointing forward — preserved as the 7-source state, not overwritten, per the Update Policy); backlinks added from [[explosion-of-internal-software]], [[skills-as-memory]], [[shedding-weight]] and [[2026-07-24-non-engineer-throwaway-verification]] so v2 does not repeat v1's orphaning; `index.md` (Queries section marks v1 superseded, v2 current).
+- Method note: created as a **new dated page** rather than editing v1 in place. Query pages are dated Q&A snapshots (`wiki/queries/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`); rewriting the 07-22 file would have made its date lie and would have been a silent large rewrite of a dated artifact.
+- Substantive changes to the thesis set: **(1) T3 reframed** from "skills are the new memory" to *"context you author beats context that's inferred"* — the v1 wording has a live counter-example in [[thorsten-ball]], and the reframe is what all four practitioners actually agree on (Konstantin's skills, Allie's foundation docs, Eugene's anti-memory position, Thorsten's `AGENTS.md` are all authored context). It survives all three readings logged on [[skills-as-memory]] and keeps the script's Memory→Skills stations intact. **(2) T5 upgraded from assertion to evidence** — [[explosion-of-internal-software]] supplies a non-engineer-shaped outside case (20-person club, phone, menu photo, ~2 hours), which defuses the "sure, *you* can do that, you're technical" objection against the talk's least-provable claim. **(3) Three new theses** the earlier set had no source for: T6a verification/ask-for-checks, T10 shedding weight ("which of your processes only exist because *you* were the bottleneck?"), T13a ask-for-15-options. **(4) T1 strengthened** — Thorsten's "stop tuning model choice; the dominant variable is the information you put in" makes harness-not-model the best-evidenced claim in the vault, and it is already the script's literal closing argument. **(5) New honest caveat** — token budget as a second, non-skill axis of the gap.
+- Revised 30-min cut: T2 · T4 · T3 · T6a · T1 · T5 · T15, mapped to script beats. Changed from v1's recommendation: T3 reframed, T6a added, T12 promoted (it now has a teachable five-part prompt structure from Thorsten rather than an abstract principle), T9 demoted to Q&A.
+- Also produced: a Q&A-ammo section stating the skills dissent honestly with the three readings and the presentation-safe framing, and **three gaps the refresh exposes in the current script** — no verification beat (the audience's first question is "can I trust it?" and the script never once shows the agent being checked), no "what stays yours" beat (the closing arc is entirely harness, not human), and the unsaid token-budget caveat against the "a laptop, one hour, and your real work" promise.
+- Read directly for this refresh: `raw/notes/Webinar script.md` (current ladder: Chat box → ReAct → Tools → Memory → Skills → Process → OS), `raw/notes/Webinar Plan - From Chat Box to Your Own OS.md`, `raw/notes/my theses.md`. Notable: T4 and T1 are already dramatized in the script better than a slide could do it ("the notebook is tiny. On purpose."; "the model never changed").
+- Next: decide whether T6a earns a station or one line inside the Skills station (recommend the latter — a checker skill is one sentence of demo and costs no new level); decide whether T10 opens the talk rather than closing it; the remaining lint recommendations stand (create a `taste` concept page; extend [[theo-konstantin-allie]] to four lenses). The falsification test on [[skills-as-memory]] would settle T3's tension and would itself make a strong demo.
+
+## 2026-07-28 — maintenance (token-budget claim rescoped; webinar gap #3 withdrawn)
+- Intent: maintenance
+- Input: user objection to gap #3 in [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] — every LM vendor sells a subscription, that subscription covers even advanced users, so "budget" reduces to subscription cost, which is obvious.
+- Assessment: **objection upheld, and the corpus supports it more strongly than the original write-up did.** The token-budget claim was recorded at ingest as an unqualified "the divide is also a *spending* gap" without weighing three counter-datapoints already in the vault: [[eugene]] runs 7 project-agents in parallel on a $200 plan; [[allie-miller]] runs ~100 agents and 36 workflows; and [[2026-07-14-sebastian-eugene-interview]] frames levelling as "a 20-year veteran and a fresh grad **on the same subscription**." No practitioner in the corpus reports a cost ceiling. The claim's real scope is **metered** pricing — [[amp]] sells usage, and Thorsten's pattern is parallel remote sandboxes and parked orbs ([[async-by-default]]) — which is a fleet cost, not a seat cost.
+- Pages changed: [[enterprise-ai-reality]] (scoping sub-bullet added under the token-budget item, with the counter-evidence named), [[explosion-of-internal-software]] (the "two variables" bullet rescoped; its Contradictions entry partly resolved and marked tentative), [[context-as-scarce-resource]] ("context now has a price" → "…at fleet scale"; per-request scarcity restated as the binding constraint for individuals), [[overview]] (vault-level open question narrowed to fleet/enterprise allocation), [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] (gap #3 withdrawn with the reasoning recorded inline; T7's "second axis" line rescoped so the thesis stays on the skill gap).
+- Claim preserved, not deleted, per rule 5 — Thorsten did say it and it stands in its own regime. What changed is scope and the counter-evidence, both now stated on every page carrying it.
+- Residual open: metered/fleet pricing and enterprise budget allocation remain unanswered; [[eugene]]'s price-rise prediction ("what I now buy for 200 will cost about 1,000") would reopen the question for individuals if it holds — currently a forecast, not a constraint. Status: tentative.
+- Notes: worth flagging as a process lesson — the claim came from a credible source and was written up the same session it arrived, without checking it against the vault's existing practitioner evidence. A source's framing of its own economics is not automatically the corpus's.
+
+## 2026-07-28 — query (verification beat design)
+- Intent: query
+- Input: "What are your suggestions for verification beat? What can we add?" — following the gap flagged in [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]].
+- Pages created: [[2026-07-28-verification-beat-design]] (placement analysis, three options costed by seconds, drafted script copy in the script's voice, audience-translation lines, honest caveats).
+- Pages updated: [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] (T6a now points to the design page); `index.md` (Queries).
+- Key synthesis: **the verification beat and the "what stays yours" beat are the same beat** — verification is exactly where the human's remaining job lives ([[product-ownership]]) — so one insertion closes both gaps the refresh identified. Matters for a 30-min format.
+- Placement argument: the audience's unease peaks at one specific existing line in the Process station ("I take my hands off the keyboard… Nobody is typing. It just... runs."). Answer it there, not in Q&A. Recommended split: introduce the checker skill at **Skills** (~60–90s), cash it in at **Process** (~20s, reuses an existing reveal), put the judgment half in the **closing arc** (~30s).
+- Three options by cost: **(1)** ~15s and free — the Process station already reveals the prompt the shell wrote for its worker; add one visible self-check line to that artifact, no new demo steps. **(2)** ~60–90s recommended — a second skill whose only job is to check the first, demonstrated by breaking the state *by hand* so the audience sees the error before the agent reports it; introduces the producer/checker species split from [[2026-07-24-non-engineer-throwaway-verification]] at no new level. **(3)** ~30s standalone — **the script already contains a perfect ambiguity example**: the Process goal line says "keep the cube on the **right shelf**", which reads as *correct* shelf or *right-hand* shelf. The colon disambiguates it as written, so the unsafe version can be shown deliberately as a live demo of [[leave-less-room-for-imagination]] (currently thesis T12 with no demo) and as motivation for the checker.
+- Closing half drafted to fill gap #2: a checker catches drift but can never catch a wrong rule ("if twenty degrees was the wrong number, both agents agree, confidently, forever") → "the machine checks whether the thing was done right; you check whether it was the right thing." Converts the ending from capability to the audience's own value.
+- Caveats recorded rather than smoothed: a checker authored by the agent it checks is not independent verification (the same limit already logged on [[async-by-default]] — proof produced by the thing being checked is evidence, not verification); [[nina]]'s transcript-beats-summary finding is a standing counterweight against implying reading is now optional; and none of this has been tested on a non-engineer audience, which is why the audience-translation lines after option 2 are load-bearing rather than optional.
+- Note: `raw/notes/Webinar script.md` was read but **not modified** (rule 1). All drafted copy lives in the wiki for the user to apply.
+- Next: gap #2 is now addressed by this design; the remaining lint recommendations stand (create a `taste` concept page; extend [[theo-konstantin-allie]] to four lenses). Open decision from the refresh — whether T10 ("which processes only exist because you were the bottleneck?") opens the talk.
+
+## 2026-07-28 — maintenance (authorized raw edit: "right shelf" ambiguity demo) + theses legend
+- Intent: maintenance
+- Input: user — "That's a great idea about the 'right shelf'. would be a perfect demo. add it." Plus a question about the `T<number>` shorthand.
+- **Authorized raw edit** (exception to rule 1, on direct instruction; same pattern as the 2026-07-14 script edits logged above): `raw/notes/Webinar script.md`, Process station. Inserted the ambiguity demo between "…but a goal." and the real goal line — deliberately sloppy prompt ("keep the cube on the right shelf") → agent moves the cube to the right-*hand* shelf → "That's not what I meant. I meant the *correct* shelf. It heard: the shelf on the *right*." → "It didn't ask. It didn't hesitate… It just confidently did the wrong thing." → "Every gap you leave, it fills. And it fills it silently." → ties into the hands-off moment a minute later and reuses Marcus's own word: "Marcus said: don't let it drift. Turns out the first thing that drifts… is what I meant." → then the precise goal as originally written.
+- Placement rationale: kept at Process rather than moved to Skills (the design page's alternative) because the user is adding the ambiguity demo *alone*, without the checker skill — standalone it is strongest where the ambiguous phrase already lives and where handing over control is imminent. If the checker skill (option 2 of [[2026-07-28-verification-beat-design]]) is added later, this beat should move earlier so the problem precedes its solution.
+- **Stage-safety note added inline** (`_note:`): a modern model may disambiguate "right shelf" correctly from context, so this beat must be pinned to a deterministic response or a low-temp on-rails prompt. Consistent with the Plan's existing "never a naked live call" production rule. Without pinning, the demo can silently succeed and kill the point on stage.
+- Effect on the wiki: this is the first *demo* of [[leave-less-room-for-imagination]] in the deliverable — thesis T12 previously had no dramatization. The script's own accidental ambiguity became the example.
+- Pages changed: [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] — added a legend explaining the `T<number>` shorthand (T = thesis; stable handles for cross-referencing; T1–T15 follow v1's order where the thesis survived; letter suffixes mark v2 additions placed beside their nearest relative instead of renumbering). This was an undocumented convention I introduced in v2 and the user was right to flag it.
+- Next unchanged: decide on the checker skill (option 2) and the closing what-stays-yours half from [[2026-07-28-verification-beat-design]]; remaining lint recommendations stand (a `taste` concept page; extend [[theo-konstantin-allie]] to four lenses).
+
+## 2026-07-29 — ingest (А что если наВайб-Кодить / "What if we vibe-code it?")
+- Intent: ingest
+- Input: `raw/sources/А что если наВайб-Кодить.md` — viewer's conclusions from a 5:31 Russian YouTube video (author unknown; his company pays "millions a year" for Datadog). 11th source; `raw/sources/` fully ingested again.
+- Pages created: [[2026-07-29-what-if-we-vibe-code-it]] (source), [[maintenance-is-the-real-cost]] (concept — 25th).
+- Core of the source: **writing code was never the bottleneck — maintenance is.** Developers never skipped building their own Jira/Datadog for lack of ability; they skipped it because they didn't want to *run* the result. An internal service is a second IT business (bad for the company and the developer both); "I can write it in a week" ≠ "worth writing"; the vendor sells operational offload, not code. Evidence: the pendulum case — a company builds its own Jira clone (March 2026) and returns to a bought tracker, Linear, by July. Prescription: a build-vs-buy checklist (dependency size / ongoing support / operational load / second-business willingness). The author also retracts his own earlier "many services will die because of AI" claim.
+- Why it matters to this vault: it is the **first dedicated counterweight to the build-everything-yourself thread** ([[explosion-of-internal-software]], [[emacsification-of-software]]) — and both of those pages had already flagged "maintenance is assumed away" as their own weakest point, so the objection was latent and is now sourced with the corpus's only *observed outcome* of the pattern (a reversal). Reconciliation recorded on both sides: Thorsten's club app *passes* the source's own checklist (tiny, personal, no SLA), his "teams will remix Riverside" prediction is what the checklist rejects — the disagreement is a threshold, not a winner. Separately, the source *agrees* with the vault's spine from a new angle: "writing was never the bottleneck" is the harness-over-model premise; the corpus now holds three named bottlenecks that don't compete — context (Thorsten, authoring time), verification (Theo, ship time), maintenance (this source, lifetime).
+- Pages updated: [[explosion-of-internal-software]] (contradiction upgraded from self-criticism to sourced, threshold reconciliation, next-question sharpened), [[emacsification-of-software]] (maintenance objection sourced; `~/bin` fork passes, team remix doesn't), [[code-as-throwaway]] (new "lifetime boundary" bullet — throwaway is safe *because* unmaintained; first user converts code into a service), [[thorsten-ball]] (contradiction added, tentative both sides — one anecdote vs one prediction), [[overview]] (11 sources; frontier bullet counterweight; new divergence entry; concept count), [[2026-07-28-webinar-theses]] (T5 scoping note: the thesis survives — its examples are checklist-safe — and gains a one-sentence inoculation against the sharpest technical-audience pushback), `index.md`.
+- Uncertainty flagged: the pendulum case is second-hand tweets with fuzzy company identification (tentative); the checklist is prescriptive, not observed; the author's own company is currently building a Datadog replacement — if it ships and survives, he becomes his own counterexample. Open question with no evidence either way in the corpus: does the maintenance objection survive *agents* doing the maintenance ([[agentic-loops]], [[async-by-default]])?
+- Effect on the last lint's watch item: [[emacsification-of-software]] and [[explosion-of-internal-software]] were merge candidates "if neither gains second-source support by the next lint" — both now have second-source engagement (as a bounding counterpoint), which argues for keeping them separate with [[maintenance-is-the-real-cost]] as the shared boundary page.
+- Next: the standing recommendations are unchanged (a `taste` concept page; extend [[theo-konstantin-allie]] to four lenses; the skills falsification test). New candidate question for the HR audience: which of their candidate tools (candidate knowledge base, transcribe→summarize) fall on the safe side of the build-vs-buy checklist — directly webinar-relevant if Q&A raises "should we build or buy?"