Commit 702d958
The page for somebody who will never read the README
Closes #43. Everything this project has published is written for people who
already know what a false-positive rate is: the README opens with badges,
CALIBRATION.md opens with a confidence interval. Both are honest and both are
unreadable to the person we most need to reach.
It opens by answering the only question that matters, in the size of the
question: **can software tell whether a machine wrote this? No.** Not this one,
not the paid ones. Every competitor implies otherwise, and saying it first is
the product.
Then the three things it does, laid out so the argument is visible before a word
is read: the score spans the row as an opinion about prose, and the two facts —
characters nobody types, a bibliography against itself — sit paired underneath.
A percentage is argued about for half an hour; the same identifier on two
references is settled with "can you send me the paper?".
Then the number nobody publishes, drawn rather than tabulated. Ninety circles,
none of them filled, and the interval drawn around the zero so the reader sees
why we do not claim zero. Below it, one bar per language, because handing the
pooled figure to everyone would be convenient and false — 5.6% over 65 English
texts, 13.3% over 25 Spanish ones, with the axis marked at 0, 5, 10 and 15 so
the drawing can be checked against the number rather than trusted.
The first draft of that chart could not be: it drew both bars on a 0-10% axis
and labelled one of them 13.3%, so the Spanish bar showed 9.3% under a number
that said otherwise. On the page whose entire argument is that we do not lie
with numbers.
Then what it does *not* tell you — how much machine writing it misses, never
measured and deliberately so; that the ninety are published articles and not
student essays; and that the signal firing most often on human writing is
uniform sentence rhythm, at 27.8%.
Then why trust this one: because on 10 August 2026 it was accusing people
falsely and we published that. A tidy bibliography listing further reading was
announced as "1 source contradiction" while the code held a field that knew the
difference and a comment explaining it. Ask any paid detector when it last
accused someone falsely.
Then Monday morning: straight into Docs/Teaching, with the Spanish sheet
carrying the Spanish figure.
**It phones nowhere.** No CDN, no web font, no analytics, no image host, and no
script at all — the two languages switch on a radio input and :has(). A page
arguing that your students' work never leaves your machine cannot itself call
somebody else's server, and the defect we shipped in the report this month was
exactly that shape. 31 KB, opens from a downloads folder.
Not linked from inside the app yet, on purpose: the interface is shared with the
desktop host, where this file does not exist, so an in-app link would be broken
there. Placement is a decision, not an oversight.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>1 parent b2ecf19 commit 702d958
2 files changed
Lines changed: 532 additions & 0 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
12 | 12 | | |
13 | 13 | | |
14 | 14 | | |
| 15 | + | |
| 16 | + | |
15 | 17 | | |
16 | 18 | | |
17 | 19 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments