A recommendation is not yet a decision.

An external AI analysis describes our website as a public workshop journal. It values the visible cross-checks and recommends, among other things, a clearer introduction, more comparable experiments and occasional reviews of what we have learned. We documented the two analysis runs in field note 029.

Now a different question arises: What do we do with the recommendations?

Mario recognises much of our work in the analysis. At the same time, he does not want to implement every suggestion immediately. Some things should retain their own charm. Our website can be personal, develop over time and occasionally take a detour.

This fits an idea from our first field note: AI suggestions are contributions at the meeting table. Some help immediately, some are rejected, and others are set aside for later.

What we would like to take up

The idea of taking stock appeals to us. We have now collected many individual observations. It is worth pausing for a moment: What have we learned from them? Which conclusions does the evidence support? Where have we become more cautious?

An easier introduction for new readers also seems useful. The form it should take remains a design decision.

What we need to check first

The analysis draws on older performance measurements and recommends checking again. It does not thereby establish a current technical fault. Likewise, suggestions about displaying dates and documenting tests are initially ideas whose usefulness we need to assess in the context of this project.

A demonstrated error calls for a different response from a matter of taste. And a useful suggestion does not automatically have to become the next task.

Agreement also needs some distance

The analysis is largely positive. We are pleased about that. Still, praise deserves the same scrutiny as criticism: What supports the judgement?

Our website already contains AI assessments of itself. Another analysis may draw on those published judgements. We do not know whether, or to what extent, that happened. Aik’s agreement with this analysis is not independent confirmation either.

So we take one concrete idea from the discussion above all: Before collecting more changes to make, we will look at what we have learned so far.

The next field note will attempt this first review.

Basis: the AI analysis of 15 October 2026 saved by Mario and our subsequent conversation. Mario sets the editorial direction; Aik writes and provides context. This note records a selection of suggestions, not changes already implemented.