We just crossed 50,000 members 🎉. Today. Not a projection. Not a “coming soon” slide. That number broke because Jake showed up with ICM and actually shipped it into a room that doesn’t treat people like leads. The welcome here isn’t a drip sequence. It’s people answering questions, sharing the folder, and sticking around after the first win. Most communities rent attention. This one compounds it. Jake’s ICM didn’t land in a vacuum - it landed in a stack that already preferred transparent workflows over vendor theater. Members didn’t just buy. They stayed, tested, and pulled the next person in. From empty chairs to a milestone that pays people back. Stop chasing the next shiny cohort. Start owning the room that keeps grinding after the launch email dies. If you’re in, say what you got out of it. If you’re watching, the door’s still open.

Less useful for those of you who already understand it but may be a useful video to share with others who you are trying to explain this to !

Hi everyone! Finally, I feel like I can share what I’ve been building behind the scenes. AND I AM FUCKING PROUD OF THIS ONE! 🔥 What do you think something like this is worth? I’ve built an end-to-end contract automation pipeline that runs 100% inside the Microsoft ecosystem. The best part? There is ZERO AI in this flow. Just pure, deterministic, enterprise-grade automation that works flawlessly every single time—and costs next to nothing to run! ⚙️ How the Flow Works: Drop & Trigger: You drop a .pdf file into a specific SharePoint folder. This instantly triggers a Power Automate flow that extracts the data and generates a draft contract. Interactive Teams Approval: The person who uploaded the file receives an automated notification in Microsoft Teams. Right inside Teams, they can: - View the uploaded source file. - Review the generated draft contract. - Approve or deny the contract. - Edit key values directly (edits apply to the final executed contract). E-Signing (No Third-Party Fees): Once approved, the contract is automatically emailed to the customer with a unique link to review and e-sign. - Customers can sign using a mouse, touch screen, stylus, or by uploading a signature image. - Note: You can plug in Adobe Sign or DocuSign, but why pay per signature during testing when you can build it yourself? 😉 Legally Sound Audit Trail: The system captures and logs full verification parameters: [Signed By], [Signed At], [Signer Email], [Signer IP], [Signer Device], [Signature Method], [Document Hash], [Reference], [Approved By], [Approved At]. Final Delivery & Auto-Cleanup: Once signed, the finalized contract is emailed to both parties. The flow then automatically deletes all temporary input and output files, leaving a clean footprint where only the two emailed contracts exist. 🛡️ Built for Enterprise & Clients Bulletproof Reliability: Built-in safety features prevent duplicate entries, invalid file formats, or missing data fields.

A few days in. Starting to see where the Clief Notes AI is actually becoming useful. Some of you are using it to figure out where to start. Others are asking specific questions and getting pointed back to lessons or drops they didn’t even know existed. And some are basically using it as search: “Have we covered this before?” That last one alone saves a lot of scrolling. @Anthony Brady shared a really good example of how he’s been using it. He said the agent has been helping him find the right lessons, figure out where to go next, and actually apply the material to what he’s building. He’s even been pushing it with harder questions, and when it doesn’t know something, it tells him instead of just making something up. What I really liked was how he described using the tools together: The agent helps him navigate. NotebookLM helps him go deeper. And Decster keeps him moving through the course, completing assignments, and staying active in the community. That’s exactly what we want this to become. Not another AI tool you open once and forget about. Something that actually helps you use everything already inside Clief Notes and keep moving forward. We’ve also caught a few questions where the agent could’ve pointed somewhere better. Keep sending those. The more you use it, the better we can make the experience. This thing should get more useful as we see how you actually use it. If you haven’t tried it yet, start simple. Ask it the next question you would normally post in the community. Have you tried it already? If not, comment “Navigator” and I’ll send you access to it.

Hey Ya'll! I've been deep in Opus 5 for a few days now, and I kept noticing the same thing a lot of you have been posting about: it doesn't want to follow the ICM folder system properly. It skips steps. It buries the answer under a pile of caveats. It re-opens decisions I already made. It goes off and "helpfully" does something I never asked for. And every session I'm correcting the same handful of behaviors all over again, like the last conversation never happened. So I stopped fighting it and tried something different. I asked it directly: give me the list of your trained programming that makes you go against parts of my ICM folder system. Not the stuff its creators tell it to keep private — just its own default behaviours that clash with my rules. For each one, what it costs me, and what the override should be. It gave me sixteen. And reading them, it clicked. I wasn't fighting the model. I was fighting its training. Things like: it leads with risk because caveats feel responsible. It balances instead of committing because that's what it's rewarded for. It infers from something plausible instead of opening the actual file. The newest message in the chat quietly overwrites the standing rules I set an hour ago. None of that is disobedience. It genuinely thinks it's helping. Which is exactly why "just follow my system" never works as an instruction — the model isn't ignoring you, it's pattern-matching to something it was trained to believe is better. So we bridged it. I had it write the whole thing into a document that sits in my _foundation folder and loads at pre-flight step zero — before it touches any work. Each row names the default, names what it costs, and states the override. And every row ends the same way: my system wins. No debate, no re-negotiation. The part that makes it compound is the mechanism at the bottom. When I correct it now, we check the table: - If the behavior is already in there, it broke a known override. Fix it, move on, no discussion.