<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Notes on ClaimTheStory</title>
    <link>https://claimthestory.com/blog/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Notes on ClaimTheStory</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0300</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://claimthestory.com/blog/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The check that kills good ideas</title>
      <link>https://claimthestory.com/blog/the-unclaimed-check/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0300</pubDate>
      <guid>https://claimthestory.com/blog/the-unclaimed-check/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every finding we propose goes through the same step before anyone writes a word: we go looking for the person who already published it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Search, then the communities where the question actually gets asked, then the AI assistants — because if an assistant answers the question directly and cites a source, the finding is not unclaimed, it is &lt;em&gt;already someone else&amp;rsquo;s&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2 id=&#34;what-it-looks-like-when-it-works&#34;&gt;What it looks like when it works&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;On a recent run we proposed three findings for an infrastructure company. Two came through clean, with nothing comparable in public. The third was about how job listings describe infrastructure security responsibilities — a good idea, well framed, and one that would have made a genuinely interesting piece.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
