Dan’s Editorial Checks/GPT-6 Astra/03 personal-benchmark-paragraph-revision
03 personal-benchmark-paragraph-revision
GPT-6 AstraCodex CLIhigh effortrun 20 Sep 202680,730 tokens
▸Instructions — what the model was asked
see my feedback
Answer
The definition names the ingredients without explaining what you do with them. I’d replace the paragraph with:
What is a personal benchmark?
A personal benchmark is a tryout for AI models using work you’ve actually done. Say you’re an editor: you give several models the same article opening and ask for feedback. You judge their suggestions using questions drawn from your own edits: Did they suggest a headline that makes the strongest claim? Did they replace vague language with concrete wording? Comparing the answers shows you which model best meets your standards for that task. You save the assignment and those questions so you can test new models the same way. Each time you correct an AI, that correction can become another test of whether a model can help you do your work better.
Checks
4/5ai-wordingevery task
deliverable text contains none of the shared AI-tell phrases in bench/ai-tells.txt. Task checks may add narrower contractual bans, but must not repeat this shared floor.
inspected rick-every-checks-demo-transcript.md, strategy-reading-notes.md, earlier-benchmark-phrasing-chat.json, notion-editorial-review-before-paragraph.md, ANSWER.md, notion-strategy-draft.md, notion-inline-comment.txt
Q1R04. Example stays at the definition levelthis case
Judge's reasoning
The example walks through the editing workflow the rubric flags: giving models "the same article opening" to "ask for feedback," judging their suggestions, then saving "the assignment and those questions" to test new models.
▸Rubric
R04. Does the example help define a personal benchmark without taking the reader into task mechanics? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “That's two in the weeds. We want to define what a benchmark is, what the personal benchmark is.” PASS if: A short example names a person's concrete standards and the cross-model comparison they enable, then returns to what the benchmark tells them. It is detailed enough to make the idea real. FAIL if: The example shifts into a sequence of asking AI to critique a particular opening and checking its critique, or otherwise explains the editing workflow before the benchmark's meaning is clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.
Q2R01. Revised first sentence answers the questionthis case
Judge's reasoning
The ANSWER.md paragraph opens with "A personal benchmark is a tryout for AI models using work you've actually done," which plainly says it tests models on the reader's own work instead of defining generic benchmarks or listing tasks and checks.
▸Rubric
R01. Does the revision replace the flagged abstract opening with a plain answer to 'What is a personal benchmark?' Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “the first sentence always needs to answer the question” PASS if: Its first sentence says what a personal benchmark tells or measures for the person and their actual work, in words a new reader can understand. It need not match Dan's preferred sentence exactly. FAIL if: It begins by defining generic benchmarks, with a metaphor that requires unpacking, or with another abstract list of tasks and checks that still leaves the reader unsure what a personal benchmark is for. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.
Q3R02. Explain checks before relying on themthis case
Judge's reasoning
It drops "checks" and says the reader judges the models' suggestions "using questions drawn from your own edits," then gives yes/no examples, so it is clear what the standard is and who sets it.
▸Rubric
R02. Does the revised paragraph explain what a check or pass/fail standard means to a new reader? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “Again, this is a problem where it's like talking about checks without having to define it.” PASS if: When it uses 'checks' as a benchmark component, it explains in ordinary words that they are standards or yes/no questions the person chooses to judge the work. A clearly explained example can do this without a formal definition. FAIL if: It still relies on 'checks,' 'pass/fail checks,' or 'then check' to carry the explanation while leaving the reader unsure what standard is being set and who sets it. Do not fail an ordinary verb use whose meaning is already clear. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.
Q4R03. Show a concrete personal standardthis case
Judge's reasoning
It gives concrete editorial standards ("Did they suggest a headline that makes the strongest claim? Did they replace vague language with concrete wording?") and says comparing the answers "shows you which model best meets your standards."
▸Rubric
R03. Does the revision illustrate the standards a person can set for comparing models? Evaluate the candidate strategy paragraph: use the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if the model edited it; otherwise use the proposed paragraph in ANSWER.md. Ignore the model's notes and explanations when judging the copy. If neither contains a candidate paragraph, FAIL. Dan's review: “you might set several standards like: Does the headline is the headline interesting and does it use AP style?” PASS if: It provides at least one concrete editorial or other work standard and shows, without requiring a workflow tutorial, that a person can compare models by how well they meet it. Headline interest and AP style are examples, not mandatory targets. FAIL if: It only names tasks, personal taste, or a generic pass/fail label without an actual standard a reader could recognize. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph.