marketing: FRE-199 fact-check verdict applied — second pair drafts/ → approved/

Sponsor fact-check card (FRE-199, interaction a7cba232) answered 2026-11-05
20:21Z: 'Approve both — move to approved/'. Status blockquotes updated to
record the verdict and the date; page bodies untouched.

marketing/approved/agent-parallel-tracking/copy.md

@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
 # How do you keep track of multiple coding agents?
 
-> **Status: draft — awaiting sponsor fact-check** (FRE-199 pair 2, internal
+> **Status: approved — sponsor fact-check passed 2026-11-05** (FRE-199 pair 2
-> target Mon 2026-11-09). This page never names a product of ours and never
+> fact-check card, verdict: "Approve both — move to approved/"). Not published;
-> names a competitor.
+> a human places it on nook.freno.me from `approved/`. Internal target:
+> Mon 2026-11-09, met four days early. This page never names a product of ours
+> and never names a competitor.
 
 The honest answer: not by watching them. Run three agents and the watching
 already fails — the session you are not reading is the one that finished, or

marketing/approved/agent-run-without-asking/copy.md

@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
 # Should you let your coding agent run without asking permission?
 
-> **Status: draft — awaiting sponsor fact-check** (FRE-199 pair 2, internal
+> **Status: approved — sponsor fact-check passed 2026-11-05** (FRE-199 pair 2
-> target Mon 2026-11-09). This page never names a product of ours and never
+> fact-check card, verdict: "Approve both — move to approved/"). Not published;
-> names a competitor.
+> a human places it on nook.freno.me from `approved/`. Internal target:
+> Mon 2026-11-09, met four days early. This page never names a product of ours
+> and never names a competitor.
 
 You can — and the honest answer is that "should" is not one decision but two:
 what you are letting it do, and what happens when it does the wrong thing.