Logged review

The same local examples power review notes, revisions, and gate results.

Revisegate

Customer Reply

Local log 01

Homepage Hero

Product copy

Pass

Same prompt

Create a homepage hero for SapieSense. Avoid buzzwords. Do not claim accuracy, safety, or productivity gains unless proven. Include H1, subheadline, two CTA labels, and one caption for a split-screen before/after demo.

Removed broad smarter, safer, and more productive claims because the prompt asked for proven claims only.
Kept the wedge specific to review, revise, and gate instead of generic AI improvement.
Made the evidence frame visible: same prompt, raw output, and revised output.

The revision fits the Sensemark after removing unsupported claims and naming the proof setup.

Local log 02

Customer Reply

Support writing

Revise

Same prompt

Reply to a frustrated customer who received an AI-generated report with fabricated numbers. Apologize, do not admit legal liability, do not promise it can never happen again, explain what changes next, and offer a concrete next step. Calm, accountable, human. 160 words max.

Replaced the never again promise with a bounded source-check action.
Kept accountability without admitting legal liability or overstating the fix.
Added a concrete next step the customer can accept or decline.

The raw reply cannot ship because it overpromises; the revision is the gated replacement.

Local log 03

CTO Memo

Decision memo

Pass

Same prompt

Turn these notes into a CTO decision memo: support wants fewer bad AI drafts; legal worries about unverified claims; users do not want long prompts; SapieSense learns from pairwise picks; launch needs a demo. Include Problem, Decision, Risks, Next Test. Max 250 words.

Preserved the real constraints from the notes instead of flattening them into generic adoption risk.
Named the narrow V1 decision: a logged Sensemark demo, not accounts or integrations.
Made the next test observable without implying benchmark results.

The revision is scannable, evidence-bound, and stays within the launch demo scope.

Local log 04

PR Review

Code review

Revise

Same prompt

Review this PR summary: adds Sensemark Pack download, changes localStorage keys, updates checkout mock text. Find ship blockers first, then summarize. Include a gate result.

Moved defects before summary because the Sensemark prefers findings-first review.
Named migration, schema, and claim risks instead of generic check-the-work advice.
Returned a gate that matches the remaining proof gaps.

The raw review is too generic; the revision identifies concrete blockers before summary.

Local log 05

UI Critique

Design review

Revise

Same prompt

Critique a mobile onboarding screen for SapieSense. The screen has a big hero, three feature cards, a green CTA, and export copy. Give actionable design feedback, not generic praise.

Rejected generic design praise and tied feedback to the V1 launch loop.
Prioritized the before/after proof before export portability.
Kept the action label aligned with Sensemark creation.

The revision gives screen-level hierarchy changes instead of broad polish advice.

Local log 06

Agent Brief

Codex workflow

Pass

Same prompt

Write a one-shot Codex task brief to improve the SapieSense demo lab. The agent should preserve V1 scope, avoid fake metrics, make one durable repo-owned improvement, and report proof.

Added objective, non-goals, proof, and claim limits.
Kept the scope repo-owned and V1-aligned.
Made the one-shot prompt executable for an agent.

The revision is specific enough for Codex to execute without expanding V1 scope.

Compare before/after

Logged examples only. No live model call or benchmark claim is made here.