This site was asked for, in sentences

The pages of this issue, the layout, the navigation and most of the words were made by asking for them in plain sentences and then looking at what came back.

That is not a stunt. It is the only honest test of the claim we make about the product, which is that an assistant can run a site. If it only works when the people who built the platform are the ones asking, the claim is false and we would rather find that out ourselves.

What it actually sounds like

Not prompts in the demo sense. Short, specific, and often a correction:

• Start a site for a product foundry, in English.
• Graphite, paper white, and one hi-vis marking colour.
• Put the four products on the homepage as a handoff line.
• Now show me what that looks like on a phone.

The fourth one is the important one. Most of the work was looking at the result and saying no.

The interesting question is not whether it can write a page. It is whether it can be told it got one wrong.

What it did badly

It reached for the same layout twice in a row, and it wanted every section to be a heading with a paragraph under it. Left alone it produces a document rather than a design, which is a real limit and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

What it does well is everything that is tedious and exact: the same status words on every page, alt text on every photograph, a mobile layout that is composed rather than collapsed, and forty pages that all still agree with each other after a change.

The part that matters to a customer

Nothing here used a private back door. Same account, same tools, same limits. Anything in this issue is something you could ask for on your own site this afternoon.