Rewrote Copilot governance answer to match the restrained, analytical tone of the leader page, removing overconfident American-style assertions.
Key changes:
- Opening: "creates significant liability exposure" → "raises structural questions about governance"
- Removed dramatic scenarios: "Post-incident: 'How did this get approved?' No audit trail. No answer."
- Removed unvalidated cost claims (£500k-£2M settlements, specific ROI figures)
- Added development context: "proof-of-concept validated in a single project context"
- Changed assertions to observations: "will cause" → "may create", "is" → "raises questions about"
- Removed sales pitch language: "Case closed", "catastrophic liability exposure"
- Added honest limitations: "If your rules are inadequate...Tractatus enforces those inadequacies architecturally"
- Changed CTA: Removed "pro bono offer" for removed "show you exactly where your exposure is"
- Used cautious framing: "Whether this constitutes 'compliance-grade' evidence depends on your regulatory context"
Tone now matches leader page:
- Measured, intellectual engagement
- Evidence-based claims with context
- Acknowledges uncertainty
- Focuses on structural governance questions
- No prescriptive assertions
Version: 1.1.0 → 1.1.1
User feedback: "I like your overconfident American attitude. It has its place on this planet, but not here."
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3449882285