Build LogCopy
#01
2026-08-206 min read

Good copy is a reader-side audit. My site failed it twice.

Two copy bugs in the same two-week window. The NAPA SEASON body prose gave Suno the authorship. The /contact/ timelines note read as a pre-rejection to anyone with urgent work. Both made complete sense when I wrote them. Neither survived a cold read.

Read post
Creative AICopy
#02
2026-08-166 min read

"Suno for the production and vocals" handed away the authorship of the record

The NAPA SEASON album page had a credit line that read "Suno for the production and vocals." Written as a transparency disclosure, it transferred authorship of the record to the tool. Disclosure and attribution are different outputs from the same sentence — and catching that difference now requires treating every tool-credit line as a legal-grade edit.

Read post
Build LogCopy
#03
2026-08-125 min read

The NAPA SEASON blurb gave Suno the credit. That was the obvious one.

Five copy edits across captainrandom.co.uk in six weeks. None were about finding better words. Each one was correcting the record on who made what — the album, the production chain, the catalogue, the offer.

Read post
Build LogCopy
#04
2026-08-115 min read

Accurate to me, misleading to you: every copy fix this month was the same bug

Every copy change I made to captainrandom in July traced back to the same failure mode: wording that was accurate to my intent and misleading to the person reading it. That’s a different bug from a factual error. Factual errors you catch by verifying; this one only shows up when you read from the wrong seat.

Read post
Build LogCopy
#05
2026-08-105 min read

I wrote it as a quality signal. The prospect read it as a rejection.

Five copy fixes on captainrandom in 2026. Contact page, learning hub, creative sub-brand, album credits, a placeholder. Different surfaces, same root: the copy said what I intended; a first-time reader read something different.

Read post