02 personal-benchmark-paragraph-first-draft

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.