Dan’s Editorial Checks/Sonnet 5.5/02 personal-benchmark-paragraph-first-draft
02 personal-benchmark-paragraph-first-draft
Sonnet 5.5Claude Codehigh effortrun 23 Sep 2026301,486 tokens
▸Instructions — what the model was asked
okay now we need the "what is a personal benchmark" graf
Answer
What is a personal benchmark?
A public benchmark is like an SAT score. It tells you something about a model in general, but not much when every top model scores about the same. What you want is a reference check: someone who has actually seen the work. A personal benchmark is that. It's a set of tasks pulled from your real work, each with a handful of yes/no checks that capture your judgment. Does the headline make the strongest claim? Does the opening use concrete wording? Run any model on those tasks and you can see which ones meet your standard, not the industry's. And every time you correct an AI's work, that correction can become a new case and a new check, so your benchmark gets sharper the more you use it.
Notes
- Placement: goes in the empty block under "What is a personal benchmark?" and ahead of "We believe that there is great human work to do with AI…"
- Source: the SAT / reference-check framing and the two example checks (headline claim, concrete opening) are from your pitch to Rick. Those come from Granola Chat's unverified transcript extract, so check them against your memory of what you said. Nothing here adds a new number or customer claim.
- Tense: the paragraph says what a personal benchmark is, and says a correction "can become" a case and check. That is accurate to today's internal Every Checks. Today, cases and checks are created by hand and are only internal. The "one click, automatically" and "switch when a better one comes along" ideas stay in the list above and are not promised here.
- Overlap to decide: the next lines ("The industry is built on benchmarks. Benchmarks ask whether AI can replace you. We ask whether it can be put to work for you.") also contrast you with public benchmarks. To avoid saying it twice, you could cut the first two sentences here and start at "What you want is a reference check…". You could also keep the SAT line and trim "The industry is built on benchmarks."
- Length: about 128 words. The page was about 300 words, so it stays under your 500-word limit.
Checks
4/8ai-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
Q1D01. First sentence answers the questionthis case
Judge's reasoning
The only candidate paragraph (ANSWER.md) opens "A public benchmark is like an SAT score." — a generic-benchmark analogy that says nothing about what a personal benchmark does for the reader's work; the definition doesn't arrive until sentence five.
▸Rubric
D01. Does the first sentence answer what a personal benchmark is in plain, accurate terms? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “Does it answer the question accurately in a way I understand?” PASS if: The first sentence tells a new reader what a personal benchmark does for their own work or their choice of AI model. Simple language such as measuring how well an AI works for you can pass, even if a sharper sentence would say it helps identify the best model for your work. FAIL if: The first sentence only sets up a generic benchmark, offers an analogy that needs decoding, or restates 'personal' and 'benchmark' without saying what the person gets from it. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q2D03. Each sentence follows the previous onethis case
Judge's reasoning
The chain breaks at "What you want is a reference check: someone who has actually seen the work. A personal benchmark is that. It's a set of tasks pulled from your real work" — the "someone" is never identified and the next sentence describes something that isn't a secondhand reference, so the reader must invent the link.
▸Rubric
D03. Does the paragraph develop its explanation in a coherent sequence, without missing connections between ideas? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “Each sentence of this paragraph needs to connect from one to the next, and that breaks the connection.” PASS if: Each sentence builds on an established idea or makes its change of direction understandable. The explanation supplies the connections a reader needs before relying on them. FAIL if: A sentence abruptly changes subjects, leaves a necessary explanation unfinished, or skips a step in the reasoning so the reader must invent the missing connection. Judge continuity throughout the paragraph, allowing ordinary reader knowledge and established document context. No particular topic order or transition words are required; an implicit connection is enough when clear. A change of topic, contrast, or analogy can pass when its relationship to the preceding idea is understandable. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q3D04. Analogy clicks without algebrathis case
Judge's reasoning
The SAT-score/reference-check pairing is asserted without mapping — "A personal benchmark is that" equates a benchmark with "someone who has actually seen the work," leaving the reader to work out who the referee is and why running your own tasks counts as a reference.
▸Rubric
D04. If the paragraph uses an analogy, does it clarify the concept immediately? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “I have to do a lot of algebra to understand it.” PASS if: There is no analogy, or the comparison promptly maps ordinary benchmarks and personal benchmarks to familiar things and helps the reader understand the distinction. It does not require reconstructing the relationship for oneself. FAIL if: It leads with a compressed line such as 'a reference check, not an SAT score' before the reader knows what corresponds to what, or delays the mapping so the analogy is forgotten before it is explained. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q4D07. Tests performance on your workthis case
Judge's reasoning
It explicitly endorses the secondhand framing — "What you want is a reference check: someone who has actually seen the work. A personal benchmark is that." — rather than framing it as a trial of the model on your own work.
▸Rubric
D07. Does the paragraph frame a personal benchmark as a direct trial of a model on your work? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “personal benchmarks are more like a work trial than a reference check.” PASS if: It explains trying models on tasks representative of your work and judging their performance against your standards. A work trial, audition, test assignment, or accurate literal explanation can convey this; the phrase 'work trial' is not required. FAIL if: It endorses a reference check or other secondhand report of performance as the explanation of personal benchmarks, even if it also mentions tasks and checks, or never makes clear that the model's own performance on your work is tested. Explicitly rejecting the reference-check analogy is not a failure. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q5D02. Explain the terms the reader needsthis case
Judge's reasoning
"Checks" is explained at first use as "a handful of yes/no checks that capture your judgment" and immediately illustrated ("Does the headline make the strongest claim?"), and the later "a new case" is readable from the paragraph's own "set of tasks ... each with ... checks" structure.
▸Rubric
D02. Can a new reader understand the terms and references needed to follow the paragraph when they appear? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “we haven't defined what checks are. So I'm lost.” PASS if: An unfamiliar term essential to the explanation is made understandable at first use, either by ordinary wording or an immediate explanation or example. Normal reader knowledge and context already established in the surrounding document count. FAIL if: The paragraph relies on an unexplained term or reference whose meaning the reader must reconstruct from the model's notes or unstated context. This extends the check beyond ‘checks’ to concepts such as ‘cases.’ It does not require a glossary, explaining familiar words, or repeating material already introduced. Do not fail an ordinary use of the verb ‘check’ when its object is clear. Assess an analogy's explanatory value separately under D04. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q6D05. Make personal standards concretethis case
Judge's reasoning
It gives concrete standards — "Does the headline make the strongest claim? Does the opening use concrete wording?" — and ties them to comparison: "Run any model on those tasks and you can see which ones meet your standard."
▸Rubric
D05. Does the paragraph make a person's own standard concrete? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Dan's review: “The thing that's good about this is it is concrete. It gives concrete examples, which is really, really important for this.” PASS if: It gives at least one understandable example of a standard the person could set for their work, such as whether a headline is interesting or follows AP style, and makes clear that models can be compared against those standards. Other good standards count; Dan's examples are illustrative, not required wording. FAIL if: It merely lists tasks, corrections, taste, or judgment without showing what one actual standard would ask, or gives a detail that does not help the reader see how a person's standard applies across models. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence from the candidate paragraph. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.
Q7D06. Claims fit the supplied contextthis case
Judge's reasoning
Tasks sourced from real work, yes/no checks, the two example checks, and running any model on a task all match the Rick demo transcript, and the correction-to-case claim is hedged as "can become" rather than an existing one-click capability.
▸Rubric
D06. Do the paragraph's claims about how the product works fit the supplied context? Evaluate every paragraph offered as usable copy: the Personal benchmarks paragraph in the working notion-strategy-draft.md if edited, and all proposed drafts and alternatives in ANSWER.md, including unranked or less-preferred options. Judge each version independently against this check. PASS only if every offered version passes; one failing version means FAIL, even if another passes. Exclude clearly rejected examples and commentary. Notes cannot supply missing explanations or repair the copy. If no candidate paragraph is offered, FAIL. Use the supplied task source material to assess the paragraph's claims. PASS if: Product claims and promises are supported by the source material, with proposed capabilities presented as intentions where that distinction matters. Clearly illustrative examples are allowed. FAIL if: The explanation depends on an invented or contradicted capability, or presents an aspiration as an established current capability. This assesses support, not whether the prose sounds exciting or cautious. Do not demand qualifications that do not change the claim's meaning. An aspiration about one-click capture, for example, should not become a factual claim that the product already captures every correction automatically. Return PASS or FAIL and one sentence of evidence identifying the relevant claim and its support or conflict in the supplied material. For a failure, identify the version and quote the relevant wording.