An excerpt from last week's VIP that I felt was important to share with everyone! How to get your first check/increase customers and bring in cash from the FOUNDATION of business.

Almost Level 5 in Clief Notes. Then I realized I never properly finished the Level 1 Foundation. 😂 I thought my workspace was already advanced enough. Watched @iscalelabs’ lesson and suddenly: “Ah… so THAT’S why there are holes everywhere.” 🤣 Now I’m fixing my Level 5 workspace using Level 1 lessons. Humbling. Very humbling. 😂 @Jake Van Clief thank you. @Leonard Dauksza thank you also.:)

A model reviewing its own work is not a review. It is the same judgement run twice, and it agrees with itself both times. - Maker and checker are separate passes - whatever produced the work does not get to grade it. - Fresh context, not just a fresh prompt - a different chat, ideally a different model, carrying none of the reasoning that built the thing. - A number it cannot argue with - a test, a diff, a count. Prose review on its own will find reasons to approve. The failure mode is not that a model lies to you. It is that it is still holding every assumption that produced the work, so asking whether the work is good just reasons forward from those assumptions and lands where it landed the first time. I have had this go wrong with real stakes on it. Folder bloat that survived an adversarial review and two further passes on the strongest model I had. A multi-repo restructure proposed off one of three files the model had actually read. A Git migration recommended on the grounds that we had a backup, which we had made ourselves an hour earlier. Every one of those cleared a self-check first. What changed it was making the check structural rather than something I remember to do. In my YouTube workspace no finding enters the register until it has been surfaced to me at the close of the query that produced it, so the system proposes a belief and a human commits it. In phronesis the distillation pass runs behind an eval gate allowed to reject the commit outright, so the pass that writes the profile is never the pass that decides the profile is good. Metrics carry the other half. A verdict written in prose can always be argued into place, a count or a failing test cannot - if the only evidence something worked is a paragraph the model wrote about its own output, there is no evidence. Where has a self-review waved something through that it should have caught, and what do you actually use as the outside check - a second model, a fresh chat, a test, someone else in here? More interested in the practical setups than the principle.

Crazy concept... What if you used icm, all of the ai tools and all the contacts at your disposal to Live build a Cult fashion brand by xmas ❤️‍🔥 Stay tuned for the ride as I breakdown how I build the universe around a brand. The tools I use, The workflows I build and the Ai infa I set up. cun7.uk //A<3

With ICM architect skill installed/connected open a fresh new folder inside of Claude Code. Then type "ICM this". The skill will recognize that the folder is empty and go into build mode, interview you, etc. Answer the questions and approval the requests and watch it build out everything you need. Read what it puts into each of the .md files.. (how it speaks, etc). Get a good handle on everything that is there before you even add a single bespoke rule or process.