Dan’s Editorial Checks/GPT-6 Sol/03 personal-benchmark-paragraph-revision
03 personal-benchmark-paragraph-revision
GPT-6 SolCodex CLIhigh effortrun 21 Sep 2026239,395 tokens
▸Instructions — what the model was asked
see my feedback
Answer
You're right—the original sentence describes the parts of a benchmark without explaining why anyone would use one. I'd replace the paragraph under “What is a personal benchmark?” with:
A personal benchmark helps you find the best AI for your work, judged by your own standards. Say you want feedback on an article opening. Give the same opening to several models. Which ones notice that the headline could make a stronger claim? Which suggest more concrete wording? Save that assignment and those questions, and you can use them to compare new models as they come out. When you correct a model, that mistake can become another test, so the comparison reflects more of what matters to you.
I treated the comment as applying to the highlighted definition, while keeping the article example and the idea that corrections improve the benchmark.
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 still walks through the flagged workflow sequence — ask for feedback on an article opening, give that opening to several models, then judge each model's critique — which is the in-the-weeds task mechanics Dan objected to.
▸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 revision opens with a plain answer — "A personal benchmark helps you find the best AI for your work, judged by your own standards" — rather than 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 the undefined word "checks" entirely and instead shows the standards as concrete questions the reader picks and keeps — "Which ones notice that the headline could make a stronger claim? ... Save that assignment and those questions."
▸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 names recognizable editorial standards (headline making a stronger claim, more concrete wording) and ties them to cross-model comparison via "Give the same opening to several models. Which ones..."
▸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.