> thought they were visually helpful in this instance

If you're the author, can you comment on whether you used AI to write this? (Specifically, the text.)

Where it might be suffering is in its presentation of a list of facts unorganised around any thesis. It took me until your China Question section to see the meat of your piece.

If I had to suggest some edits, they would be making everything above that section more concise (by reducing the number of charts and/or moving them to footnotes) and adding a summarising subtitle.

There are also jargon jumps, e.g. from TFAB to TCB. (I initially assumed the FAA was a TCB, the latter being a generic international term.) This compounds the lack of conciseness presented by the accredition-body breakdown and TCBs vc. test-only labs sections. If those sections were moved after your thesis section, you could dive into whether China's labs differ from the U.S. labs in those respects.

The content of the site is, as stated in my first comment and in the article itself, a nice looking wrapper on top of in essence, an llm Wiki that I put together with the help of Claude on the hardware certification universe. While I was building this data set out, I uncovered that the FCC had this vote today, so I thought it would be a good thing to share since it's timely and because I had just collected all of the relevant information tolp someone figure out how this impacts their hardware certification process (I use voice transcription to write this comment)

I very much appreciate your feedback. As I look at the article now. I totally see what you're saying. I should have let off what was going on with the vote today since that's what I referenced in the title of the post on here.