> No manual intervention. No partition reassignment. No ISR drama.

> Numbers are real, not marketing.

I'm not questioning the actual benchmarks or anything, but this README is substantially AI generated, yeah?

Fair question.

The benchmarks, logs, scripts, and recovery scenarios are all real and hand-run that’s the part I care most about being correct.

For the README text itself: I did iterate on wording and structure (including tooling), but the system, measurements, and tradeoffs are mine.

If any part reads unclear or misleading, I’m very open to tightening it up. Happy to clarify specifics.

	▲	roywiggins 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		LLM tics like the bits I quoted feel more like marketingspeak by committee than an actual readme written by a human. I don't have any particular suggestions of what to write, but you just don't need to be this punchy in a readme. LLMs love this style though, for some reason. When I read this type of prose it makes me feel like the author is more worried about trying to sell me something than just describing the project. For instance, you don't need to tell me the numbers are "real". You just have to show me they're covering real-world use-cases, etc. LLMs love this sort of "telling not showing" where it's constantly saying "this is what I'm going to tell you, this is what I'm telling you, this is what I told you" structure. They do it within sections and then again at higher levels. They have, I think, been overindexed on "five-paragraph essays". They do it way more than most human writers do.
	▲	tuhgdetzhh 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If I might ask without being offending: How much percentage of the actual code is written by AI?