# Opening feedback

**Strongest idea:** Every’s biggest token user, CEO Dan Shipper, thinks his colleagues should consider using *more* AI. That reversal is more compelling than the abstract “Token Math” or an opening question about ROI. The rest of the draft supplies the necessary qualification: expensive experiments should be judged by what they produce and teach, and inefficient setups should be changed.

**Suggested copy**

**HED:** Our CEO Wants Us to Use More Tokens

**DEK:** Dan Shipper leads Every’s OpenAI token leaderboard by more than 3×. The question is what ambitious experiments buy us.

**Opening paragraph:** Every CEO Dan Shipper uses more than three times as many OpenAI tokens as the next person at the company—and wonders whether the rest of us are being ambitious enough with AI. He wants people to try new ways of working, then assess what they produced, learned, and spent.

**Why change it:** “Token Math” gives readers no claim to latch onto, while “What’s the ROI on experimentation?” promises a calculation the piece does not provide. The alternate headline (“How Many Tokens are Too Many?”) puts the emphasis on restraint, although the opening argument is to experiment more and evaluate afterward. The alternate dek’s “rein your tokenmaxxing in” is awkward and suggests waste is the goal. The current first sentence is hedged and slow, and “highest spender” implies a cost ranking when the evidence cited is a token-usage ranking. Lead with the measured gap, keep Dan’s conclusion as a question, and let the later examples show both the value of experimentation and the need to control costs.