Our approach to covering AI business strategy has evolved meaningfully, and naming the specific shifts matters more than asserting general improvement.
We separated description from evaluation more explicitly
Early coverage sometimes blended a company's stated strategy with our own assessment of it without a clear seam. We now try to make that separation visible within each piece.
We stopped rewarding confident framing over substantive detail
We used to give more weight to how confidently a strategy was presented than we're comfortable with in retrospect. We now weight specific, checkable detail more heavily than confident delivery.
We got more comfortable publishing genuinely uncertain verdicts
We're now more willing to conclude that a strategy's soundness genuinely isn't yet knowable, rather than forcing a premature verdict our evidence doesn't support.
Why this evolution matters
Strategy coverage that conflates confidence with soundness misleads readers making their own strategic decisions, and we think being explicit about correcting for that conflation is worth stating directly.