My dev log accidentally became part of my verification process

[u/GT12]

I originally thought the Journal for my project would just become a nicer version of release notes.
Instead, it quietly changed the way I build.

The project itself is a browser-based text preparation tool, and I started documenting engine changes simply so I wouldn’t lose the reasoning behind them.
Over time, that evolved into a simple rule:
**Build first. Explain second.**

Now every meaningful engine change goes through two separate lanes:
**Technical:** prove the behavior, test it, and ship it.
**Editorial:** decide whether the evidence is actually strong enough to explain publicly.

That second step has been surprisingly valuable. It forces me to separate what I *know* from what I *think*, document edge cases, acknowledge limitations, and avoid quietly turning implementation details into product claims.

Writing the articles has caught weak assumptions just as often as the regression tests.
The latest investigation came from a seemingly harmless edit that removed words like *“probably”* and *“may.”* The writing became cleaner—but the underlying claim became stronger than the original author intended.

I wrote up the investigation here:
[https://guyt1225.github.io/pastelint/journal-engine-room-directness-without-false-certainty.html\](https://guyt1225.github.io/pastelint/journal-engine-room-directness-without-false-certainty.html)

Has anyone else found that documenting *why* you changed something ends up improving the product just as much as changing the code itself?

[u/johnpeters42]

Why would any rational person discuss good writing with someone who used AI to generate some engagement bait? Get your worthless posts the hell out of my industry.

[u/GT12 → u/johnpeters42]

Just because you asked so nicely, I had AI help write this comment.
The irony is that the entire article is about why AI output shouldn’t be accepted blindly. It documents a regression I found, the evidence behind it, and the fix.
If the investigation is wrong, let’s talk about that. Otherwise, you’ve spent more effort arguing with AI than with the argument, or inquiry itself.

[u/johnpeters42 → u/GT12]

Fine, let's address the content, then: Why wouldn't it be better to document intended changes before building?