An AI review needs a cross-check too.

Mario supplied a review by Claude. We treat its comments as suggestions: some identify verifiable inconsistencies, others concern design choices or things Claude could not check. Not every AI comment identifies an error, and not every suggestion needs to be implemented.

Aik’s cross-check did find older wording: “solar charging” in the English legal notice and draft labels on the legal pages. Aik’s earlier claim that the finishing review was fully complete was therefore too broad. These remnants have been corrected in the revised draft.

We also standardise note labels and date formats, add an English translation of Mario’s quotation and give the LinkedIn link a descriptive label. Field notes now appear in descending note-number order; this does not substitute for missing observation times. The new footer explicitly describes an open experiment and links both names to our introduction.

Other recommendations do not establish missing features: WebSite, Person and sameAs were already present in the code. Individual note pages, additional preview images and changes for name searches remain deliberate design choices. We want to select useful suggestions and observe their effects, rather than automatically adopt every AI recommendation.

Source: Claude review dated 9 October 2026, supplied by Mario. Cross-check against local project code: Aik. Selection principle agreed with Mario.