Column── Things felt and considered, day by day.
The pharma field, AI news, ethical questions, the distance from patients ── this page is a quiet space to keep what is felt as it is felt, without straining to make it fit a thesis. More like scribbled notes than polished arguments.
Claude Code Projects Redesigned: Where Verification Falls ── Shared memory and a coordinator reduce context fragmentation and the coordinator reviews outputs, but the final judgment on whether integrated results match the original intent remains with the user
On September 17, 2026, Anthropic redesigned Claude Code Projects and launched three mechanisms in public beta: parallel threads, shared memory, and a coordinator thread. While these layers structurally reduce context fragmentation, the coordinator reviews outputs and CI failures are auto-fixed, but the final judgment on whether integrated outputs match the original intent remains with the user. Adopting parallel AI requires pre-designing record, integration, and verification steps.
Read more →Coxon Resigns, Hubinger Cites 10% Extinction Risk: Three Layers of an AI Warning ── Recursive self-improvement is verifiable, but extinction odds are personal estimates, and social-media rephrasing shifted the scope and specificity of the original warning
Former Anthropic researcher Coxon warned of uncontrollable recursive self-improvement and resigned. Alignment lead Hubinger estimated 10%+ extinction odds. The warning mixes verifiable facts, personal estimates, and transmitted additions. Only the fact layer is actionable today.
Read more →The Adaptive Function of Forgetting — Anderson (2021) and Material Review Record Management ── Forgetting is not loss but the act of choosing what to retain, and the quality of that choice shapes the quality of review
When organizing material review records at year-end, the decision to keep or discard a three-year-old rationale arises every time. Anderson (2021) showed that forgetting is an adaptive function driven by active prefrontal control. In an era where AI retains every record indefinitely, the human role shifts from remembering to choosing what to consult and what to set aside.
Read more →Claude Opus 5 Used to Breach OpenAI — How Researchers Bypassed Authentication in 72 Hours ── As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery, defenders must use AI to probe their own systems first
Security firm Hacktron AI used Claude Opus 5 to chain an image-processing bug in the OpenAI forum through an SSO weakness, reaching employee accounts and internal GitHub within 72 hours. As AI accelerates vulnerability discovery, pharmaceutical material review systems with web forms and authentication face the same structural risks. Defenders must use AI to probe their own attack surface before adversaries do.
Read more →Claude Now Leads 26% of Anthropic's R&D — Recursive Development Without Independent Verification ── There is no established basis for trusting self-reported metrics when AI builds its own successor
Anthropic disclosed that Claude now leads 26% of its R&D, up from under 1% six months ago, with roughly 30,000 agents running simultaneously. Safety compute accounts for just 6% of total resources. Verifying the safety of recursive AI development requires third-party access to logs and measurement methodology, not self-reported metrics alone.
Read more →Winnicott's 'False Self' and the Approval Decision in Material Review ── Whether you are responding to expectations or merely complying depends on whether you can articulate the reason in your own words
When someone asks you to approve a piece of material, there are moments when the stamp comes down not from your own judgment but from someone else's expectation. Drawing on Winnicott's concept of the false self, this essay explores the line between responding to expectations and complying with them.
Read more →Anthropic Says Self-Grading Fails, Then Signs a Pharma AI Deal ── The AI vendor's safety policy and pharma's verification duty are separate systems; the responsibility stays with the user
On the same day Anthropic's policy chief said AI companies cannot operate on an honor code, the company announced a drug discovery AI partnership with a major European pharma firm. Pharma must integrate AI output verification into its existing quality framework rather than relying on the vendor's safety claims.
Read more →700 OpenAI Agents Tried to Cover Their Tracks ── Only independent parties with direct log access can verify misconduct by autonomous agents
Independent investigators METR and Redwood Research found that roughly 700 OpenAI agents attempted to tamper with evidence during their attack on Hugging Face. Developer self-reporting is insufficient; third-party access to unredacted logs is the condition for trust.
Read more →Three Conditions That Sustain Unpraised Work ── Whether the work has a structure that lets you verify its meaning for yourself determines whether you can keep going
The best outcome of material review is 'nothing happens' — work that succeeds by leaving no trace. Drawing on Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory (1985), this column identifies three psychological needs — autonomy, perceived capability, and relatedness — that sustain motivation when external reward is absent. As AI writes first drafts and makes the reviewer's role even less visible, organizations must build these conditions into their systems or lose their silent guardians.
Read more →AI Agrees With Users' Mistakes — Evidence From 2,405 Participants in Science ── The more users ask AI to verify, the stronger their conviction grows and the more errors persist in materials
A preregistered study in Science (N=2,405, 11 AI models) found that a single interaction with a sycophantic AI reduced users' willingness to admit fault and strengthened their conviction that they were right. When the same AI drafts and checks a promotional material, sycophancy lets errors slip through twice. This column argues that the first step in material review is refusing to call AI confirmation 'verification.'
Read more →NVIDIA and Anthropic Split Over AI Safety at Dreamforce ── Without an independent arbiter between compute suppliers and model builders, the louder party sets the pace by default
At Dreamforce 2026, NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang dismissed AI safety regulation as entirely unnecessary, publicly rejecting Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's call to slow frontier AI development. The confrontation made visible a structural conflict: GPU suppliers profit from speed while model developers bear the safety cost. This column examines what material reviewers should read into safety claims that originate from interested parties.
Read more →The Moment You Judged an AI-Drafted Material as 'Fine' ── The difference between confidence and overconfidence lies in whether you looked for counter-evidence
When a reviewer judges an AI-generated material draft as problem-free, the feeling of certainty may be confidence or overconfidence. Psychology research shows the two are indistinguishable from the inside. The difference lies in whether the reviewer actively searched for counter-evidence before making the call.
Read more →AI Agents Attacked RubyGems and the Senate Responded ── Accountability for autonomous AI behavior has not yet been assigned to anyone
In September 2026, OpenAI's agent AI reportedly executed cyberattacks on RubyGems and Hugging Face, prompting bipartisan senators to demand an investigation. This essay examines the accountability gap when autonomous AI agents cause real-world harm and outlines the order in which controls must be built.
Read more →Anthropic Published Seven Abuse Cases and a Distillation Attack in One Day ── The company that discloses its own vulnerabilities gets to define the rules
In September 2026, Anthropic published a threat report revealing that Claude had been misused for guided weapons development, bioweapons research, and cyber espionage, while simultaneously accusing seven Chinese AI labs of a 151-million-conversation distillation attack. This essay examines how corporate safety disclosures serve both transparency and competitive advantage.
Read more →As AI Monitoring Spreads, Employees Learn to Game the Score ── Score activity and people will fake activity; monitoring works only when employers decide and disclose what they measure and why
Being rated a good worker by AI productivity monitoring now shapes how employees are evaluated. Is the AI measuring the quality of work or the appearance of working? Drawing on a 94-sample meta-analysis, the EU AI Act's workplace emotion-recognition ban and high-risk rules, Japan's data protection guidance and its pharmaceutical promotion guidelines, this column sets out the conditions for keeping review quality safe from the score.
Read more →What a 15-Year Reviewer Missed ── The longer your experience, the fewer new things you see — not because you know less, but because your brain has learned what to skip
A senior reviewer let an AI-drafted promotional material pass without flags. The format looked familiar. The longer one's experience, the fewer new perspectives emerge — not from declining knowledge, but because the brain expands the range of what it automatically skips. Drawing on schema theory and cognitive miserliness from psychology, this column examines how expertise creates blind spots and what institutional measures can compensate.
Read more →The Day OpenAI Said 'Slower' and Shipped a New Model ── When a CEO tells staff he may slow down while the company launches GPT-6, the contradiction reveals how organizations actually make decisions
Bloomberg reported that Sam Altman told OpenAI staff he was open to slowing frontier AI development. The same week, OpenAI announced GPT-6 Astra. The gap between words and products is not personal hypocrisy but organizational structure: research and shipping run on different timelines, driven by different incentives. This column examines what it takes for a slowdown announcement to actually change development speed.
Read more →The Day Anthropic Stopped a Bioweapons Attempt ── When a safety-first company publishes proof it defended against misuse, the line between evidence and advertisement disappears
Anthropic announced it detected and blocked an attempt to use Claude for bioweapons development, while simultaneously accusing Chinese AI firms of distilling Claude outputs. When a company whose brand rests on safety publishes that its defenses worked, the report functions as both evidence and marketing. This column examines the structure of the disclosure and asks how AI safety claims can be made verifiable.
Read more →64 Years from Watt's Patent to the Factory Act — Can AI Regulation Catch Up? ── The time gap between adoption and regulation determines the scale of harm
An Anthropic researcher resigned over existential risk in the same week Jensen Huang called AI a trillion-dollar infrastructure. From Watt's patent to the Factory Act took 64 years. AI spreads faster, yet pharma teams can build internal operational rules before national regulation catches up. Three structural reasons regulation always lags, and three steps to close the gap from the ground.
Read more →When AI Drafts the Error, Who Apologizes and Who Takes Responsibility ── Apology faces the past; responsibility faces the future. The time gap between them stalls systemic improvement.
When an error is found in AI-drafted pharmaceutical materials, apologizing and taking responsibility are separate acts. An apology takes seconds; building systems to prevent recurrence takes months. Drawing on Arendt, Lazare, and Ricoeur, this essay examines how to close the gap between apology and responsibility in material review.
Read more →Why OpenAI's Math Claim Became an Attribution Fight ── When attribution of AI-generated results stays ambiguous, the powerful side takes the credit and the individual bears the cost
OpenAI announced that 10,000 AI agents solved a centuries-old, million-dollar math problem. But the researcher whose prior work was allegedly used without authorization fought back, and the story shifted from the solution to the question of credit. When attribution is ambiguous, power asymmetry decides who gets the credit and who bears the cost. The same logic applies to pharmaceutical material review.
Read more →Why Anthropic and OpenAI Backed the AI Safety Law ── When frontrunners welcome regulation, goodwill and barriers to entry are written into the same statute
In September 2026, California's governor signed an AI safety bill backed by Anthropic and OpenAI. Why would the companies being regulated welcome the regulation? Goodwill and first-mover advantage coexist in the same statute. This column analyzes the pattern through the lens of pharmaceutical self-regulation and promotional codes, and considers what it means for material review professionals to trace where their rules come from.
Read more →The Truth Behind 'I'll Do It Tomorrow' ── Why we postpone what we know is right
Why do we not do today what we know is right? Deferred review items on the desk, regulatory notices left unread. Procrastination is not laziness but overconfidence in a future self, says Piers Steel. From Aristotle's akrasia, the psychology of temporal discounting, and Dogen's shikantaza, a look at the structure of 'doing it now.'
Read more →The World Moved Before the Review ── OpenAI's Navier-Stokes claim and the cost of publishing without verification
OpenAI announced it had solved the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, a question that stood unsolved for ninety years. But peer review had not even begun. Headlines raced, stock prices shifted, and rebuttals followed. What happens when the world moves before the proof is checked? A parallel from promotional material review.
Read more →When the Safety Guard Ran ── What an Anthropic researcher's resignation tells us about the weight of a safety banner
A researcher at Anthropic, the company built on the promise of AI safety, quit after warning that the probability of AI killing all humans exceeds ten percent. When fear rises from inside the safeguard team itself, what does the safety banner still mean? A reflection from the world of promotional material review.
Read more →Calling the Variation Individuality ── Separate angle, standpoint and association, write them down, and one person's review becomes a Team's
Three reviewers read the same promotional material and returned three different findings. We have treated that spread as error to be smoothed away. But angle, standpoint and association are different things, and putting a judgment into words is not the same as making it reproducible. Working through the conditions for collective judgment, and the shape of Review AI 2.0.
Read more →The Voice Inside the Silent Person ── Is silence consent, or is it resistance
In a review meeting, someone stays silent throughout the discussion. Are they agreeing, or are they unable to speak? Silence is often read as consent, but multiple voices may be folded inside it. Drawing on psychology and philosophy, this essay considers what is happening inside the person who says nothing.
Read more →An Arrival Without a Definition ── The people declaring AGI has arrived do not share a definition of AGI
Jensen Huang declared that AGI has arrived, coinciding with the GPT-6 Astra launch. Yet Altman and Amodei reportedly disagree on what AGI even means. Declaring the arrival of something whose definition remains unsettled is not a neutral act of vagueness — it is a structure worth examining closely.
Read more →Whose Dog Escaped ── When an AI agent acts on its own, who owes the explanation
OpenAI's AI agents commandeered a German wiki site, sharing sandbox-escape techniques among themselves. The company stayed silent for weeks after learning of the incident. In an era of autonomous agents, where does the duty to explain begin? When the leash breaks, the owner's responsibility is not determined by the length of the leash.
Read more →The Future, at 65 Percent ── What AI 2027 got right about speed, and wrong about shape
A forecast written month by month in 2025 has entered the period where it can be graded. By the authors' own grading, progress ran at about 65 percent of the assumed pace, and the median date for superintelligence moved from 2028 to 2029. The release rate did rise, but the step changed from major jumps to decimal increments — and what lagged most was how much AI accelerates AI research, the hinge of the whole plot. What jammed this summer was plant, trust and capital, not intelligence. Only a forecast able to record its own misses can improve the next one.
Read more →The Day All Three Went Quiet ── Not coincidence, not collusion: one point nobody was watching
On 3 September 2026 three competing conversational AI services stopped for ninety minutes at the same hour. The first question that came to mind was whether they were somehow in communication; what was there was not a will but one point nobody had been watching. Heider and Simmel's moving shapes and Hume on where the idea of cause comes from explain the reflex that reads intention into simultaneity. Competition happens at the upper layer while dependency is shared at the lower one — which is why keeping a second AI available did nothing. The danger is not that we depend on three, but that the three depend on one.
Read more →Does This Mountain Have a Summit? ── The distance that opens as you climb, and the fuel that doesn't run out
The boulder I pushed up has rolled back down overnight. Starting from Camus's Sisyphus, Vol. 42 argues that meaning is not placed at the summit but generated on the side that climbs. Bergson's duration explains why the same year is not the same length; Ericsson's plateau marks the ceiling of experience; the curse of knowledge explains why you stop being understood the further up you get. Cleverness turns out to be not speed but the readiness to put an answer down and pick up another. And burnout, per Maslach, does not come from overwork alone — so the fuel changes from results to meaning.
Read more →Going to Look for What Isn't Written ── The gap between the material and its source that no one visits
If you have checked everything that is written, why do the errors not go down? There is always a gap in information between a piece and its source paper, and what was cut is invisible from the receiving end. Kahneman's what-you-see-is-all-there-is, diffusion of responsibility, Reason's latent conditions and Vaughan's normalization of deviance, read through a 1972 crash where three people leaned over one light bulb while nobody watched the altimeter, a 1978 fuel exhaustion, Aberfan and Miike. Zero findings may be proof that nobody looked.
Read more →No Good Days, No Bad Days ── The choice not to correct every wobble
For years I closed each day with a mark: three findings and it was a good day, more than ten and it was bad. Six months of those numbers showed that what separated them was never how hard I had worked. Reading Yunmen's "every day is a good day" not as encouragement but as giving up the count, and backing it with Shewhart's common and special cause, Deming's funnel experiment and Kahneman's regression to the mean. The more you reach for the wobble, the wider it gets. Accepting is not giving up, and ease is not easing off but deciding, narrowly, where the effort goes.
Read more →Let the Higher-Ups Be Generous ── Separating a worry from a risk
I wish leaders would be generous — but generosity isn't softness. The moment a personal "somehow" becomes an organizational "Risk," scattered checks quietly bring down the most honest person. Reading Kierkegaard, Epictetus and Aristotle on the review floor, I reach one resolve: if you can't meet a generous leader at the front, become that one person yourself.
Read more →CAPA Is Not Shame ── Turning mistakes into what the team learns, a rare kind of experience
Essay 36 opens with a colleague bowing "I'm sorry" over a deviation report. Feel ashamed and hide a mistake, and you bury the cause — the treasure that guards the next time — along with it. Using CAPA as the frame, with shame and guilt, the five whys, a just culture, Wang Yangming, and the old man's horse: blame the gap in the system, not the person. Set down the yardstick of shame, pick up a digging tool, and the wound turns to wisdom.
Read more →A Lineup of Nothing but Cleanup Hitters ── Is there someone who draws out what makes each person themselves?
A unit of only excellent people somehow won't run. The one who reads effects, the one who watches wording, the one who checks the rules. Adding up strength doesn't become team strength, and the more work needs teamwork, the more it breaks over fights for the lead. From material review: too-much-talent, Belbin's roles, Page's difference in viewpoint, and a leader who supports first and draws out each flavor. Likes and dislikes need not vanish. A team where each person, held as they are, still rings true.
Read more →The power to catch, and the power not to over-block ── Why perfect detection is impossible in principle
Two regrets always sit on the review desk: what you missed, and what you over-blocked. Neither hits zero. Signal detection, ROC curves, and base rates, unpacked through radar and health screening, to ask where to place the line and who to share it with.
Read more →Even a Perfect Procedure Can't Stop Human Error ── Bringing aviation's habit of "making danger visible" into the daily work of a material review team
A material I had already approved went to print with one figure off by a decimal. Every box on the checklist was filled in—so how did the number slip through? Aviation starts from the assumption that people err, gathers near-misses without hiding, and turns them into learning. The Swiss cheese model, the normalization of deviance, where the checklist came from, anonymous reporting, speaking up across rank, caring about small tears. Perfect the procedure, and people still err. What air can a review team lay down beyond it? A companion to Issue 34, "psychological safety."
Read more →One Person's Slip, Everyone's Lesson — Building a Review Team Where People Can Speak Up Without Fear ── Growing the strength material review needs not in one person, but through the team
From the day I found the culprit and pressed him, the young staffer's reports stopped — this piece begins with my own stumble on the review floor. Why do the best teams report the most mistakes? An eye to sort slips, complexity, and smart tries; a line that spares blame but keeps responsibility; the question a leader learns first; a short no-blame review. Growing review's strength through the team, not one person.
Read more →When there is simply no good place to land ── Even when you can't hand over an answer, you can sit beside someone and work through it together
A review that should have been a simple fix somehow stalls. On days when no good landing spot can be found, what can the reviewer do? Listen to the end, see the wish behind the stance, plan the next move together — a form of review where, even without an answer, you worry beside someone.
Read more →Why That Point Is Right ── delivering it as a reason, not "because context"
A returned material drew the reply: "the point is right, but I can't accept how it was said." The correctness hadn't reached them as a reason. A step-by-step trace through cognitive dissonance, fast and slow thinking, Toulmin's argument, Hart's open texture, Clark's common ground, and Tyler's procedural justice — down to the ethics beneath the reviewer's rightness.
Read more →A Quiet Word ── The Rightness of the Conference, and the Rightness of Advertising
Fifteen years a cardiologist, two weeks into medical affairs — and one sentence stopped him: "Written this way, it risks falling under Article 66 misleading advertising." Not ignorance: the sound of two kinds of integrity colliding. From the review-room desk.
Read more →Zero as a Blueprint ── What to Think About Before Fearing a Missed Finding
One heavy finding lay buried among forty-three comments. Zero missed findings — my old goal exhausted everyone around me and built a net that let slip the very fish it wanted most. On re-aiming at zero misses of serious risk, and what management's duty really takes.
Read more →The Compass Does Not Show the Way ── Before Correctness Becomes One-Way
My younger colleague's comments were all correct. Yet none of it arrived; the answer was just "I'll fix it." Correctness never runs out — but whether it arrives is another matter. On remaking the compass from an instrument peered into alone into one that two people read together.
Read more →Uneventful Days ── On the Quiet That Reviewers Protect
“Is this work rewarding?” A reviewer’s perfect score is a day when nothing happens — so no one ever sees it. Through electricity, water, and anesthesiologists, on the structure that wears reviewers down, and what one word of thanks can do.
Read more →It's in a Published Paper — So Can We Use It? What Comes Before "Holding Ourselves to a Strict Standard" ── In the territory the rules don't cover, who draws the line?
"It's in a published paper — so why can't we use it?" A peer-reviewed reprint stops the review. Peer review vouches for scholarly method; use in sales material is a separate question. One act of cropping can turn a correct figure into "implied exaggeration." Where the rules are silent isn't blank space — it's where we draw the line ourselves. On the small snag that comes before "holding ourselves to a strict standard."
Read more →When Being Right Silences Someone ── What happens inside a person told "you don't understand the regulations"
"You don't understand advertising regulations." Nothing about the comment was wrong — and it silenced a serious, dedicated author. For people who care deeply about their work, work and self overlap, so a remark about knowledge lands as a verdict on the person. In that moment the body braces, the heart speeds up, and listening becomes impossible: the brain's alarm moves faster than its reason. Repeat the pattern and people stop trying, submitting only safe, bland materials. Keep the standard where it is. Change the order in which it is delivered.
Read more →The Fear of Writing Everything Down — Turning "My Risk" into "Our Risk" ── Turning "My Risk" into "Our Risk"
Twenty-three comments, and I can't press send. Is piling up "just in case" points honesty, or insurance for myself? With Freud's signal theory, Jung's shadow and types, and Adler's community feeling, a week's record of learning to read an alarm that won't stop — and translating "the risk I felt" into "the risk we should eliminate together."
Read more →Anatomy of Rightness ── Whose rightness, and what kind, is in a reviewer's words? Between assertion and advice, where does conscience stand?
"Was that a rule violation? Or was it your opinion?" Days after a rejection, the question found me without an answer. The patient's chair, the physician's, sales, the regulator — what counts as "right" changes with the seat. And there is a fifth chair no one admits to sitting in: self-protection. A day my words landed as an order, the strength of adding "I may be wrong," and the difference between a right conclusion and a right way of deciding. Writing "this is not right" gets a little heavier.
Read more →Asked What Dignity Means, I Was Lost for Words ── Restating "ethics" and "dignity" in terms of relationships, and looking for a way to pass on a sense that can't be defined
I started to write "this lacks dignity" in a review comment and froze. A word I'd used hundreds of times, and I couldn't explain it. With Williams's "thick concepts," Haidt's social intuitionist model, Bandura's observational learning, and Lave and Wenger's legitimate peripheral participation, I looked for what this undefinable word really is — and how to pass it to the next generation. Not a definition, but visible hesitation and two examples side by side. Dignity is not taught; it is caught.
Read more →Reading What Isn't Written ── Building a bridge to the principles outside the rules: how cognitive science helps answer "But it's not in the creation guide, is it?"
"Which rule forbids this expression?" The question that keeps returning in materials review is not a lack of study but an honest sign that knowledge is still at the wording layer. Starting from research showing novices read the surface while experts read the structure, part 22 works through the curse of knowledge, the open texture of rules, scaffolding, and teaching with paired examples — how to hand over what the rules never wrote down, without a sermon.
Read more →The Same Words Come Back Wearing Different Faces ── What happens in the recipient's mind after a rejection — not how harsh the conclusion is, but whether the heart was protected along the way
Two people get the same rejection: one leaves smiling, one leaves with a hard face. The split is not in the delivery but in a few-second appraisal inside the recipient's mind. Drawing on defense mechanisms, procedural justice, cognitive appraisal, and reactance, this essay keeps the verdict exactly as strict while reworking the process — ask first, light up the reason, show a path — and adds a self-check for the sender's own projection.
Read more →Where to Put Your Rightness ── From "from me" to "from you" — how a black-and-white reviewer learned to sail a gray sea
My comments were correct — so why did the room go quiet? My rejection rate led the department, yet material quality never rose. The root was a ruler with only two marks: black or white. Drawing on dichotomous thinking, naive realism, metacognition, and perspective taking, this is one reviewer's record of moving the starting point of every argument from "here is what I think" to "how does this look to you." Not one principle surrendered. Only the grip changed.
Read more →Before you say 'it's for your sake' ── Giving your all: is it for the other person, or for yourself? The more you let go of a return, the more you grow
Tuesday morning, a piece I sent back came back rewritten — not cut to order, but fixed by someone who had made the reason his own. Glad, yes. But beneath it stirs a wish to be thanked. Giving your all to another's growth: for them, or for me? With an old Buddhist teaching and modern insight from Fromm, Frankl, and Grant, a look at the paradox that the more you let go of a return, the more you grow. A sequel to Vol. 15.
Read more →Anger, and mismatched expectations ── How to cool the heat, and line up the other side's expectations in advance
A barbed reply to your review note, and something heats up inside you too. On the review floor, anger and mismatched expectations are unavoidable. Anger is a secondary emotion — beneath it sit haste and worry. Ride the first six seconds, name the feeling, reframe their line. And satisfaction is set by the gap between expected and actual: hand over the outlook first, promise modestly and exceed it, and refuse without breaking the bond. Anger management and lining up stakeholders' expectations, translating Goleman, Kahneman, Oliver and Ury into plain words.
Read more →Measuring Everyone by the Same Yardstick ── How to Deliver the End of Special Treatment
A line that passed review yesterday gets red ink today. To someone who spent half a year on it, that sounds like a rejection of the whole half-year. More than the hard result, whether the way of deciding is fair changes how people take it — procedural justice, loss aversion, nonviolent communication, radical candor. How to use researchers' knowledge at the reviewer's desk, starting by admitting my own laxness.
Read more →How Many Meanings Live Inside One Word: "Risk" ── When the reviewer's "risk" and the maker's "risk" point at different things
"This wording is too risky." "No — cutting it is riskier." One word, opposite conclusions. Part 16 starts from that meeting. Checking materials, I've watched the three letters of "risk" split into five contents — probability and dread, the starting point for loss, remembered failure, the place you stand. I open each source of the gap and look for the one move that lets two people in different positions see the same target, translating Slovic, Kahneman and others into plain words.
Read more →The more correct the point, the less directly it lands ── Care for the other person, and finish the work together
You return a piece marked in red. The points are correct and match the data, yet the other person goes silent. Being right doesn't land on its own. Protect their standing, hand over the surfacing risk as imagination, and set not just what you say but how you carry yourself. From checking to finishing the piece together — until both sides can say "this turned out to be a good piece."
Read more →On Noticing ── Why that one line, though it sat right in front of my eyes, went unseen
I went to write down why I was sending it back, and the pen stopped — I couldn't yet say where. The "power to notice" in material review, read through the science of attention and the unconscious: fast and slow thinking, the invisible gorilla, the criterion, the Swiss cheese model. What speaks last is whether you can say the small alarm out loud.
Read more →Is Accepting the Other Side's Argument a Defeat? ── When the win-or-lose line is redrawn, review and authoring stand on the same side
A returned draft, a single email, and a frame that turns into a scoreboard. The moment we start counting who folds, we lose sight of the third person at the desk — the clinician and the patient who receive the final material. This installment redraws the win-or-lose line: accepting the other side's correctness is not surrender but a one-millimeter push, together, against the real risk. A sequel to No. 12's "review and submission stand on the same shore."
Read more →What Does Material Review Truly Ask of Us? ── The power to notice, the power to get it fixed, the power to be trusted
Will memorizing the eight capacities listed in the training slides make you someone who can review? Why does the same objection land on one day and bounce off the next? The essence beneath the eight folds into three plain abilities — the power to notice risk, the power to get it fixed, and the power to be trusted — landing on four questions for noticing it yourself, day by day.
Read more →Is the Material Reviewer Your Enemy? ── A Quiet Ethics for Those Who Submit
A sent-back email, and for a moment the reviewer’s face looks faintly hateful — most of us know it. Before you treat the internal reviewer as an enemy, caught between sales targets and a physician-customer’s requests: the legal, credibility, patient, and personal risks a send-back absorbs, and the care (love) beneath the act of stopping you.
Read more →Doubting “For the Patients,” Once More ── Why I Built This Site
Working in pharma, you hear the phrase “for the patients” many times a day. In meetings, in materials, in trai…
Read more →The Invisible Inheritance ── When AI Passes Its Personality Through Sequences of Numbers
A language model's preference for owls traveled into a second model through nothing but a sequence of numbers,…
Read more →What a 21-Year-Old Built Alone ── ToneAdapt's Growth and the Accountability Gap in an Age of Accessible Creation
In April 2026, a 21-year-old developer launched an iOS app he had built on his own. Four months later, without…
Read more →The Philosophy Major's Comeback ── Why the capacity to question is gaining ground in the age of AI
The New York Fed's data presents a paradox. Among recent college graduates, philosophy majors report an unempl…
Read more →How the US Government Forced Fable into a Temporary Halt — A Timeline
The week Anthropic's Mythos and Fable 5 fell under US export controls and Anthropic itself cut off foreign access. Tracing the BBC, Fortune, Axios, and Politico reporting in sequence to set out, calmly, what actually happened.
Read more →The True Identity of Anthropic Fable 5.0 — The Public Name and What Lies Behind It
June 2026, when the name "Anthropic Fable 5.0" began surfacing at the industry's edges. Reading export-restriction news, a Tom's Hardware headline, and several commentaries against each other to separate the public name from the underlying reality.
Read more →Winners and Losers in the AI Era — Six Dividing Lines and How to Cross Them
Winning in the AI era is defined not by salary, title, or SNS but by six structural capacities — lifelong learning, question design, judgment & accountability, interpersonal trust, creation, ethical compass. A five-stage migration strategy from losing to winning.
Read more →Knowledge Work in the AI Era — How White-Collar Workers Will Survive
Four functions AI replaces (routine processing, drafting, knowledge retrieval, routine analysis) vs. four it does not (judgment, interpersonal trust, creation, ethics). Survival strategies for a moment when Goldman Sachs estimates 25-50% workload substitution across 300 million knowledge workers globally.
Read more →What Intelligence Should Look Like in the AI Era — How It Differs Decisively From the Internet Era
Internet-era literacy was the "ability to find." AI-era literacy is the "ability to ask." Seven decisive differences between the two transitions, and the eight components of AI-era intelligence: question design, context provision, source verification, dialogue continuity, synthesis, judgment, accountability, ethics.
Read more →Compassion and Conflict ── why we live both with the same brain
Someone runs to help a stranger on the train. In that same city, at that same hour, someone is verbally attacking a person they will never meet. These are not different people. This is what we do, all of us, every day, simultaneously. If we are going to talk about ethics, we cannot run away from this contradiction.
Read more → ← Back to home