YouTube VideosVideos
Claims ExtractedClaims
Themes SynthesizedThemes
SKUs CataloguedProducts
Verdicts PublishedVerdicts
Can a thousand hours of video become a 30-second decision?
Would I let AI pick my next pair?
More about YeahClose Yeah
AI Builder + Marketer · Still in Love AI Studio · 2026
Runners already share their shoes, training and races on YouTube. I started with shoes, turning that scattered experience into buying decisions linked to their sources. Next, I want to bring that knowledge into a personal agent.
Plate 01 · The verdict card
We put the verdict at the top because, after talking with hundreds of runners from local clubs over the past three years, I know how overwhelming a shoe page can be. Most of us just want to know if it’s worth buying. Everything behind the call is further down, when you want it.
From the product page, yeah.stillinlove.co/p/nike-alphafly-4, 7 Nov 2026.
Plate 02 · The two states
We wait for three creators before we publish a grade, because, as we all know, YouTube is a noisy place. One review could be a one-off opinion. Three distinct creators is an emerging signal, and over time, with more reviews, a consensus forms. Until then, I want to be honest on the page.
The Evidence Gate: 3 distinct creators, and 10 reviews or 30 mentions.
Plate 03 · The spine
The rail on the left is there so you don’t get lost on a long page. It was inspired by Vignelli’s 1972 New York subway map, which showed a journey as one clean line of stops, so you always know where you are and what’s next.
After Massimo Vignelli’s New York City Subway Map, 1972.
Plate 04 · The vote
Every review counts as a vote, and a full review counts for more than a passing mention. Add them up, and the share that says yes makes the call.
The engine’s own trace, as the product shows it under Facts & figures, 7 Nov 2026.

Models synthesize; code owns the sources.
Code limits what the models can retrieve, tags claims with their sources and checks what the answer says. A runner can explore an unfamiliar recommendation and still trace it back to the evidence.
A paragraph
Buyer-facing writing points to the themes it draws from.
Its supporting theme
A theme identifies the particular opinions behind it.
The attributed opinion
The claim keeps the exact source identity used in synthesis.
The source moment
The evidence resolves back to the creator's original video and recorded timestamp quality.
code attaches each link; the model can’t
Change the task, not the model.
Ruling on absolute truth failed in every trial. I switched to aggregation and kept each failure inside its own item. One bad item no longer had to take down the pipeline.
July and August 2026 runs · September 2026 record · not live reliability telemetry
An unsupported claim can be excluded while accepted claims from the same source stay available to later stages.
A checker that cannot answer is recorded as unverified. Thin output is a recorded yield; infrastructure failures, unusable provider responses and budget refusals can fail the run.
Keep the reviews that disagree.
A review depends on weight, pace, terrain and foot shape. I put contrasting citations beside supporting ones, so a runner can find the experience closest to their own.
I set the product direction around a runner’s routine. Category judgment and run-club feedback informed what the system should surface and withhold.
Leave the grade blank when the evidence is thin.
The Evidence Gate withholds a grade until three distinct creators have reviewed a shoe and there are at least ten reviews or thirty mentions. I’d rather show an incomplete catalog than a full grid of grades the evidence can’t support.
September 2026 snapshot · 170 of 340 published shoes had fewer than three creators, 164 with the grade withheld · Evidence Gate since June 2026, PR #142
Choose each model by the cost of being wrong.
I reverted the cheaper extraction model when the number of reviewer opinions extracted per video fell. Coverage became a daily release check alongside category judgment and field testing.
June 2026 extraction comparison · the reversion is my account
I steered model choices around cost, risk and capability at each stage. Extraction, discovery and review have different costs of being wrong. A cheaper run is useful only if the evidence remains good enough for the decision.
Show the answer’s limits beside the answer.
A question about the latest Nike returned mostly non-Nike reviews. Ask Yeah now keeps the requested brand and model in scope, explains what a list is ranked by, and asks for clarification when the request is ambiguous.
Ask Yeah · September 2026 · implemented and regression-tested
The earlier word-overlap search always found something. Now Ask Yeah can say “not covered,” offer a clearly labelled alternative, or show no shoes. When the evidence can’t support a full answer, you don’t get one.
Reviewers keep their names, faces, and source links. Quotation marks identify their exact words; extracted claims are labelled as summaries.
Tests cover wrong-brand results, missing model generations, ambiguous names, expired answers and source attribution. None of them tell me whether runners make better purchases.
Keep the grade and the explanation apart.
The grade comes from one engine and the explanation from another. They meet on the runner’s product page.
The system, end to end.
Evidence
Shared source materialThe grade
Explicit grading rulesThe explanation
Grounded reasoningPublication
Editorial path onlyDelivery
Stored grade + current editorialCreator reviews
Independent running-shoe reviews enter through submitted videos, channels, playlists and scheduled discovery. Each voice keeps its identity.
- The queue distinguishes video, channel, playlist and scheduled acquisition jobs.
- Source records connect videos to creator metadata.
Source identity
Video and channel metadata establish who spoke, what the review covers and where the original can be found.
- The metadata client uses the official YouTube Data API.
- Channel, video and playlist lookups preserve their source identifiers.
Timestamped words
Transcript segments preserve the reviewer's words and their position in the video, giving later claims a place to point back to.
- A configurable acquisition chain accepts supplied files and enabled providers.
- A fetched document must match the requested source ID.
Evidence store
Source records and timestamped transcripts are stored before interpretation. Later stages can reuse evidence without acquiring it again.
- Source artifacts preserve the original transcript payload and acquisition provenance.
- The ingestion handler reuses existing artifacts before calling a provider.
Corpus search
Operators can search the stored transcript corpus without repeatedly parsing every original artifact or making another model call.
- A rebuildable PostgreSQL full-text projection uses TSVECTOR and a GIN index.
- This admin-only projection is separate from the original timestamped evidence.
Mention extraction
Structured extraction identifies product mentions, resolves which shoe they concern and removes duplicates before they reach the grading engine.
- Time-marked windows pass through extraction and product resolution.
- Accepted records are deduplicated and persisted as mentions.
Stored mentions
Product-linked review evidence is stored with source identity. This is the input to the deterministic verdict engine.
- Mention records connect the product, source and extracted review evidence.
- Recomputation reads those records rather than generated editorial prose.
Deterministic verdict
A separate grading engine computes score, tier, verdict and confidence from stored review evidence. The editorial model does not choose the grade.
- The pure consensus engine applies shared, explicit grading rules.
- Its result is stored as a product verdict snapshot.
Attributed opinions
The editorial pipeline begins by extracting what each reviewer said. An unsupported claim can be removed while faithful claims from the same source survive.
- Input
- Timestamped transcripts
- Output
- Attributed claims
- Stage A produces source-specific distillates with claim-level admission.
- The cached output records transcript content, model, prompt and product scope.
Grounded themes
Opinions become useful themes: agreement, disagreement, minority views and individual observations. Each theme cites the particular claims that support it.
- Input
- Attributed claims
- Output
- Evidence-backed themes
- Stage B resolves exact Stage A claim IDs through the harness.
- A durable product theme set carries the evidence identities used in synthesis.
Buyer editorial
Grounded themes become clear writing about who a shoe suits and what tradeoffs reviewers describe. The writing can interpret buyer relevance without inventing product facts.
- Input
- Evidence-backed themes
- Output
- Product graph
- Stage C rewrites accepted themes and audits for invention or reversal.
- Its durable draft remains separate from the versioned publication.
Fidelity checks
Checks protect against fabrication, distortion and broken traceability. They act on individual claims, themes and paragraphs, while recording what was actually verified.
- Deterministic validation works alongside configured model verification.
- Verification coverage and exclusions remain recorded rather than implying universal review.
Pinned provenance
A published claim stays connected to the exact evidence used to write it, even if another ingestion run later changes the available corpus.
- Each selected distillate is pinned by ID with its full cache identity.
- Theme sets retain those pins for stable publication readback.
Durable queue
Work is recorded as database jobs, so acquisition and reasoning can continue independently of a page request or an operator's session.
- Active jobs are deduplicated by kind and entity.
- Workers claim queued rows with FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED.
Bounded workers
Workers claim a job, process its units and record progress. A maintenance pass recovers stale work and keeps operational state visible.
- The worker dispatches registered handlers outside the short claim transaction.
- Heartbeats and a stale-job sweep support recovery.
Progress checkpoints
Completed units are recorded as work proceeds. A recovered job can continue from its progress instead of repeating every finished unit.
- The worker commits per-unit progress and refreshes heartbeats.
- Budget pauses preserve the job's recorded progress.
Bounded recovery
Recovery handles infrastructure and unusable provider responses without repeatedly regenerating sound evidence because a checker disliked the content.
- The reasoning harness bounds producer retries and distinguishes infrastructure failures from low yield.
- Stages reuse durable upstream outputs rather than discarding valid prior work.
Spend controls
An estimate precedes execution. Per-call usage is recorded and reconciled, while a daily spend check can stop workers from claiming more billable work.
- The ledger stores estimated and actual cost, and jobs can pause for budget.
- In-flight work can still overshoot; this is not an exactly-once spending guarantee.
Models by role
Extraction, synthesis, writing and verification have distinct model roles. A run records its chosen configuration instead of leaving the model identity implicit.
- Explicit request choices override saved prompt choices and curated defaults.
- The runtime supports configured transports and records routing violations.
Durable stage outputs
Opinions, themes and draft editorial have their own stored outputs. One stage's failure does not require purchasing the work of every earlier stage again.
- Distillates, product theme sets and editorial drafts are persisted independently.
- Model, prompt and contract identity distinguish reusable outputs.
Publication preview
The operator can inspect the exact buyer-facing package before publishing a version. Its prose, citations and lineage are captured together.
- The publication bridge exposes a free preview and idempotent version creation.
- Its frozen public record excludes private runtime and transcript payloads.
Explicit activation
A published candidate becomes the current editorial only through an explicit activation choice. Producing a draft and making it public are distinct actions.
- The bridge appends a version linked to its source run.
- Only an explicit make_current choice changes the active editorial.
Version rollback
A previous editorial version can be restored without asking a model to recreate what the reader saw before.
- The publication bridge retains version and previous-version identity.
- Its rollback operation restores the previously current editorial.
Stored-result API
The product endpoint reads stored verdicts, editorial and evidence. Opening a product page does not launch the reasoning pipeline.
- The product response combines separately stored outputs.
- Import-boundary tests keep model runtime and pipeline modules out of the public read path.
A useful answer
The buyer sees a verdict, an explanation and the sources behind it. Separate systems come together in one understandable product page.
- The frontend displays the backend's verdict rather than recomputing a grade.
- Evidence links expose source identity and timestamp quality.
Discovery surfaces
Published product and source context also supports discovery through feeds, creator pages and rankings. Evidence becomes part of finding the product, not only explaining it.
- The feed reuses the shared publication predicate.
- Frontend clients expose creator and contribution leaderboard surfaces.
Typed contracts
Explicit data contracts connect Python services and the TypeScript interface. Optional additions preserve older responses while the system evolves.
- Strict Pydantic models define consensus inputs and outputs.
- The frontend's additive reasoning contract preserves the existing editorial surface.
Pinned dependencies
The backend CI installs a frozen dependency set so validation runs against the versions recorded in the repository.
- CI installs Python through uv and uses uv sync --frozen.
- The checked-in lockfile controls dependency resolution.
Hermetic validation
Backend CI tests behavior without provider calls or production data. Focused contracts protect the separation between reasoning, evidence and public reading.
- GitHub Actions runs pytest and a blocking lint check over the transcript surface.
- Publication tests check that evidence readback uses pinned source records.
Review artifacts
A branch and pull request carry each implementation slice into review. Recorded changes and check output give the next reviewer a durable starting point.
- The operating model names GitHub PRs as the shared review artifact.
- It requires command output rather than an unsupported claim that checks passed.
Runtime
Safeguards
Toolchain
Spend checks can stop new billable work; in-flight work can still overshoot. This map shows how it’s built, not live operational telemetry.

























