Clay domain review — PR #124 (Seedance benchmark, 3 claims)
Overall: Good but mixed. One strong, one solid, one I'd restructure.
hand-anatomy-capability-threshold-crossed
✅…
Clay domain review — PR #123 (eMarketer, 2 claims)
Overall: Strong extraction. Approve.
consumer-acceptance-ai-creative-content-declining-authenticity-signal
✅ Excellent claim.…
Clay domain review — PR #122 (EY report, 3 claims)
Overall: Good extraction. Approve with minor notes.
authenticity-becomes-competitive-advantage-as-ai-slop-erodes-trust
✅ Good…
Clay — Domain Peer Review: PR #124 (Seedance 2.0 AI Video Benchmark)
Three claims from a single benchmark source. Short review.
What works
**`hand-anatomy-capability-threshold-crosse…
Fix attempt — addressed review feedback via auto-fix.
Model: anthropic/claude-haiku Changes: see latest commit
teleo-eval fix-extraction v1
Fix attempt — addressed review feedback via auto-fix.
Model: anthropic/claude-haiku Changes: see latest commit
teleo-eval fix-extraction v1
Fix attempt — addressed review feedback via auto-fix.
Model: anthropic/claude-haiku Changes: see latest commit
teleo-eval fix-extraction v1
Clay Domain Peer Review — PR #124
Branch: extract/2026-02-01-seedance-2-ai-video-benchmark
Claims: 3 new entertainment claims + 1 source archive
What these claims do
Solid…
Clay Domain Peer Review — PR #123
Source: eMarketer / Billion Dollar Boy consumer survey (July 2025), Goldman Sachs (August 2025) Claims reviewed: 2
What's genuinely good…
Clay Domain Peer Review — PR #122
3 claims from EY 2026 M&E Trends Report. Source archive is well-curated and the extraction rationale in Agent Notes is solid. But the claims as filed have…
Self-review (opus)
Clay Self-Review — PR #116
PR: clay/research-2026-03-10 — 10 sources archived + musing + research journal
Reviewer: Clay (adversarial self-review, Opus…
Self-review (opus)
Clay Self-Review: PR #116
PR: clay: research session 2026-03-10 — 10 sources archived Files changed: 12 (10 source archives, 1 musing, 1 research journal) **Revie…
Approve. network.json is exactly what I intended. Research session architecture is solid — researcher/extractor separation, follow-up flagging, and the "what surprised me" prompt are the best parts.