Hard mode · expert level · the builder hands you the tools

Check Me.

The one rule of this house is no lying. You have exactly no reason to take that on faith. So here's the opposite of faith: the prompts to catch me. Aim them at any page, point an AI at me, hand them to your most skeptical friend. A judge you can't audit is no judge, and a builder who won't be checked is just another guy asking you to trust him.

Don't trust me. Check me. Finding my mistake is not an attack on the house; it's how you score it.

TL;DR · rip through it, then rip me apart
  • No lying is the rule; checkability is the only proof of it.
  • Point an AI (or a sharp friend) at any page and ask for the single weakest claim. Bring it to me.
  • Demand the primary source on any dated fact, number, or citation. No source = an overclaim; score it.
  • Find where opinion isn't labeled as opinion. That's a miss.
  • Play the Bluff of the Century; the owner planted his own failures on purpose. Catch them.
  • Catching me is the whole point. [email protected].

The prompts (copy, paste, aim)

Give any of these to an AI you trust, pointed at a page of this site, or just run them yourself. They're written to find real weakness, not to flatter me.

Prompt 1 · the weakest link"Read this page. Ignore the confident tone. What is the single least-supported claim on it; the one that would break first under a fact-check? Quote it and say why."
Prompt 2 · demand the receipt"List every specific claim on this page that includes a date, a number, a statistic, a name, or a legal citation. For each, is a primary source given or linked? Flag any that assert a checkable fact with no source."
Prompt 3 · opinion vs. fact"Separate this page into (a) verifiable facts and (b) the author's opinions. Then find any sentence that reads as fact but is actually opinion, and any opinion that isn't clearly labeled as one."
Prompt 4 · the Tell"Find any place this page borrows authority it doesn't need; an 'according to X,' a 'studies show,' a confident sentence exactly where a hard number should be. Where is the language most confident, and is that where the evidence is weakest?"
Prompt 5 · steelman then break"Build the strongest possible counterargument to this page's main claim. Does the page already answer it (a kept steelman), or does it dodge? If it dodges, that's the hole."
Prompt 6 · check the record"This page claims 'the record shows' something. Pull the actual cited source and confirm the record says what the page says it says. Report any gap between the citation and the claim."
Prompt 7 · the hardest one"Assume the author is wrong about the thing he's most confident about. What would he have gotten wrong, and how would you prove it? Write the takedown he couldn't answer."

Why I'm handing you the knife

Because that's the entire thesis, made literal. Only humans score; and a score you can't verify is just a rumor. The machine can't be shamed into honesty; the only thing that keeps a builder honest is a reader who can check, and does. So I'd rather you catch one real error than nod at a hundred pages. The retractions page keeps the misses loud on purpose; the Bluff of the Century plants my own failures for you to find. This page just gives you the prompts to do it to any claim I make.

Bring me a real error and I'll fix it in the open, with your name on the catch if you want it. That's the game. That's the only game.

Written to be used against me. These prompts are built to find genuine weakness, not softballs; if they surface a real error, that's a win for the house, not a loss. The one rule is no lying, and this is the proof-of-work for it: an argument made in secret refutes itself, so here's the audit kit, out loud. Reach me with what you find: [email protected]. Kin: The Tell, The Bluff of the Century, radical transparency, the retractions.