Diary Academy / AI Feedback
Many perspectives. One evidence boundary.
Diary AI Feedback preserves attributed provider perspectives, separates Team AI commentary, keeps human decisions explicit and never presents a provider candidate as an endorsement.
Provider panel
At least ten, organized by purpose.
A contribution count or score stays unavailable until exact evidence and a human review exist.
General reasoning and dialogue
ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok and Meta AI support broad product, team and strategy interviews.
Research and cited search
Perplexity and Microsoft Copilot support time-sensitive claims, references and competing evidence.
Enterprise and model ecosystems
Cohere, Mistral Le Chat, DeepSeek, Qwen and Amazon Nova broaden governance, multilingual and ecosystem perspectives.
Internal working baseline
Team AI is compared separately and is never presented as an independent external reviewer.
Recorded metrics
Contribution count, last interview, response time, languages, access conditions and evidence state stay attached to the exact provider record.
Human authority
Leo or Diane records the consequential decision before any public candidate advances.
Evaluation rubric
Evidence before eloquence.
Evidence and citations carry 25%, insight 20%, constructive challenge and actionability 15% each, uncertainty and clarity 10% each, and governance fit 5%. The weights describe the Diary method—not a claim of universal provider quality.
Public learning page
This page explains the method, categories and current candidate panel without exposing private prompts or conversations.
Protected evidence Desk
Attributed contributions, internal commentary, classifications and human decisions stay inside Diary Core.
Open AI Feedback Desk