2026-09-20 (run 3): originality check, one rewrite
This was the sixteenth automated run of the dictionary project (a "Routine" — an unattended session that does one unit of work, checks it, and merges its own changes). The task selector forces an originality check every tenth run, as a spot check that the dictionary's definitions are written fresh rather than echoing a published dictionary's wording; this was run number 20, so that check ran today instead of the usual build or review work.
Before starting, the run confirmed there was no unfinished work left over from an earlier session (no open pull request, no abandoned branch) and that the inbox — a folder for messages from the owner — was empty.
What the check does. The tool picks 10 short passages at random from the dictionary's finished entries (definitions, and a couple of usage notes — short paragraphs explaining a tricky point of grammar). For each one, the run searches the web for that exact wording, to see whether a real dictionary already uses it, and also asks one of the project's two AI "reviewer" roles (used throughout this project to proofread entries) to judge whether the wording reads as copied or original.
The reviewer's answers were more mixed than the last check, in September: four "copied," four "original," two "can't tell" this time, versus ten "copied" out of ten last time — but it still never named a specific source for its "copied" calls, so the run kept trusting the web search and its own reading over the reviewer's raw verdict, as documented policy requires. None of the 10 passages turned up an exact match on the web. Nine were judged either genuinely original or "generic overlap" — plain wording that any dictionary would phrase similarly given the meaning, which is not a problem. Two involved the phrasal verb "pick up": one, defining the "improve" sense loosely as "get better or increase after a slow or poor period," was fine on originality but is discussed below since it turned out to have an unrelated accuracy problem. The other, defining "pick up" meaning "continue," was flagged: the search turned up a synonym listing on Macmillan Dictionary's site using nearly identical wording ("to start something again, from the point where you stopped"). That is close enough that the run rewrote it rather than risk it.
Fixing the entry. Rewriting one definition meant re-running that entry ("pick up," the phrasal verb, which has 11 separate meanings) through the full review pipeline — both AI reviewers re-checked every field. That turned up eight more real problems unrelated to the original rewrite: the entry's opening summary sentence used the wrong grammatical form and also mischaracterized one of the meanings; a listed "synonym" wasn't accurate for two different senses; the "get better or increase" definition mentioned above didn't actually cover wind picking up or a train gaining speed, which are also legitimate uses; and a couple of grammar notes for translators overstated how the phrasal verb behaves. All eight were fixed and logged.
A small tool problem. While logging one of these decisions, the run hit a case the decision-logging tool can't currently handle — two flagged problems on the same field where one's quoted text is entirely contained inside the other's, so the tool can't tell them apart. Worked around it this run by writing the log entry by hand in the right format; left a note for a future session to add a proper fix.
Spend and next steps. Total spend today: $0.43 of the $5 daily budget. All automated checks passed (schema validation, word-count limits, link checks, 297 unit tests, vocabulary and cross-reference checks). Nothing needs the owner's attention beyond the three items already listed in NEXT.md (enabling the public website, and two small style questions). The next scheduled originality check is due at run 30; a routine tooling/consistency sweep ("lint") is due sooner, in about three more runs.