3449882285
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>
11 lines
338 B
JSON
11 lines
338 B
JSON
{
|
|
"version": "1.1.1",
|
|
"buildDate": "2025-10-14T01:30:00Z",
|
|
"changelog": [
|
|
"Revised Copilot Q&A to match measured tone of leader page",
|
|
"Removed overconfident claims, added context and limitations",
|
|
"Focused on structural governance questions rather than assertions"
|
|
],
|
|
"forceUpdate": true,
|
|
"minVersion": "1.1.1"
|
|
}
|