# Review for ai-pilots-dont-become-products
## C1. Absolute rule compliance
- R1 hallucination check: PASS. Watson Health claim hedged as "by most accounts." Gartner stat hedged as directional. Cohen & Levinthal sourced to day1.html. No fabricated quotes, author names, or precise statistics.
- R2 academic citation sourcing: PASS. Only one academic citation (Cohen & Levinthal 1990) used, sourced to day1.html lines 1217, 1231, 1311.
- R3 external claim sourcing: PASS. No external URLs cited in the post. All industry claims are hedged appropriately.
- R4 no guessed URLs: PASS. No external URLs in the post body.
- R5 no homepage-as-source: PASS. No external links used.
- R6 no lists, prose only: PASS. Post body is entirely prose paragraphs. No bullet lists, numbered lists, or bold-header phrases inside the body.
- R7 no verification metadata in post: FAIL (minor). The verification block appears after a horizontal rule at the end per the user's explicit instruction. This is an intentional deviation from the skill's default, following the user's explicit OUTPUT FORMAT instruction which overrides the skill's sidecar preference.
- R8 banned phrases: PASS. Checked for: "delve into" (absent), "it is worth noting" (absent), "in conclusion" (absent), "in summary" (absent), "it is important to" (absent), "fascinating" (absent), "nuanced" (absent), "furthermore" (absent), "moreover" (absent), "additionally" (absent), "to summarize" (absent), "as we have seen" (absent), "a testament to" (absent), "harness the power" (absent), "unlock the potential" (absent), "leverage" as verb (absent), "navigate the complexities" (absent), "pave the way" (absent), "rapidly evolving" (absent), "robust" (absent), "seamless" (absent), "cutting-edge" (absent), "groundbreaking" (absent), "in today's landscape" (absent), "at the intersection of" (absent), "serve as a catalyst" (absent), "this is because" (throat-clearing use) (absent), "the reality is" (absent), "at its core" (absent), "the key insight is" (absent), "it turns out that" (absent), "interestingly" (absent), "notably" (absent), "surprisingly" (absent), "Imagine" opener (absent), "Picture this" (absent), "What if I told you" (absent). All clear.
- R9 word count: PASS. Count: approximately 1121 words. Range: 800-1500.
- R10 em-dash rule: PASS. No em-dash character (—) appears in the post body, title, or excerpt.
## C2. Voice rules
- V1 first person: PASS. "I" used throughout. "I do not want to", "I want to be careful", "I wrote about", "I do not think", "I think".
- V2 moment opening: PASS. Opens with a real-world observation about enterprise AI pilots. No "Imagine", no rhetorical question, no thesis statement opener.
- V3 opinions marked: PASS. "I do not think pilots are bad", "I think gets underappreciated", "I want to be careful" used to mark opinion and uncertainty.
- V4 ending leaves opening: PASS. Final sentence: "Most pilots never ask it. And most pilots never become products." Ends on a point, not a recap.
- V5 natural citations: PASS. "Cohen and Levinthal (1990) defined absorptive capacity as..." used naturally inside sentence.
- V6 quotes exact: PASS. One quoted phrase from Cohen & Levinthal: "recognize the value of new external information, assimilate it, and exploit it for commercial ends" — this matches the source file exactly (day1.html line 1217).
- V7 hedging where uncertain: PASS. "by most accounts", "I do not want to cite a specific percentage", "depending on which part you are counting", "I want to be careful not to oversimplify Watson".
- V8 matches good voice examples: PASS. Voice matches existing posts. Same short-punchy-then-longer rhythm, same "I kept noticing" style, same grounded-in-specific-case structure.
- V9 avoids bad voice examples: PASS. No AI-sounding transitions, no topic-label headers, no summary section.
## C3. Anti-AI phrase scan
Scanned for all phrases in the reference list. None found. The post does not use "furthermore", "moreover", "it is worth noting", "in conclusion", "delve into", "harness", "unlock", "leverage", "seamless", "robust", "cutting-edge", "groundbreaking", "rapidly evolving", "in today's landscape", "at the intersection of", or any other listed phrase.
## C4. External link health
No external URLs in the post. Two internal links used:
- /blog/absorptive-capacity-why-tools-alone-fail — target file exists at blog directory
- /blog/erp-implementation-failure-structural-not-technical — target file exists at blog directory
Both verified by Glob above.
## C5. Structure
- Title under 70 chars: PASS. "Why AI Pilots Don't Become Products" = 37 characters.
- Slug rules: PASS. "ai-pilots-dont-become-products" — lowercase, hyphenated, under 80 chars, primary keyword near start.
- Tags valid: PASS. ["AI", "machine learning", "enterprise IT", "implementation", "absorptive capacity"] — five tags, mix of broad and specific.
- H2 count within bounds: PASS. Word count ~1121, below h2_threshold (assumed 1000 from existing posts' style). Actually 1121 > 1000, so H2 would be allowed but not required. Post uses no H2, consistent with existing shorter posts in the blog — no H2 needed for this post length.
- Internal links count within bounds: PASS. Two internal links used.
## C6. Rhythm
Reading three paragraphs mentally: The opening paragraph mixes short observation with longer list. The "None of those conditions exist in production" paragraph is a single short punchy sentence. The Watson section varies from short to long. Rhythm feels natural, not mechanical. No repeated sentence-length formula.
## Overall verdict
PASS. All critical checks pass. R7 minor note: verification block appears in-file per user's explicit output format instruction rather than as a sidecar file. This follows the user's directions and is not a skill violation given the explicit override.