How this site was made

A fair critic will ask whether a site about the dangers of AI may be built by AI. The framework's answer is that it teaches no doctrine of abstinence. It teaches conditions for right use, and it should be judged by whether its own making met them.

Human responsibility. Antiqua et Nova requires that “ultimate responsibility for decisions made using AI rests with the human decision-makers” (¶44). That holds here. The AI drafted. A named human authored, corrected, and answers for the result.

Transparency. The Rome Call's first principle, and the first thing this site's auditor checks, is honesty about AI's involvement. This page exists for that reason and is linked from every page's footer.

Truth held non-negotiable. Every quotation was verified against the primary documents before publication. The verification caught errors in the human-supplied working brief, and they were corrected rather than reproduced. The record is below.

Tantum quantum. The test of the Exercises, that created things be used insofar as they serve the end, was the working rule. The AI was used for drafting, verification, and construction, which is toolwork on an artifact. It was not used for what the framework warns about. No person was scored. No relationship was displaced. No judgment about a human being was delegated.

Before publication, every quotation and citation was checked against its primary source. The framework document carries thirty-one verbatim quotations, twenty-six from Church teaching and the Rome Call and five from Ignatian sources, anchored to twenty-one paragraph or section citations. Each was verified. The full set was re-verified against the primary sources on August 7, 2026, in the release check for Version 1.3, with no corrections required, and every quotation and locator is re-verified before a new version of the framework document publishes. Comparison is verbatim in wording and punctuation, tolerating only whitespace and character-encoding normalization, and an adjusted initial capital is marked with brackets. The counting rules are stated so the number can be checked. Repeated quotations count once, single-word quotations with citations count, and document titles are excluded. The Rome Call principles were checked against the signed document itself, extracted from the official PDF, since the Rome Call website presents condensed formulations, and in one case a renamed one. The permanent principles were checked against the Compendium (§160, with §§161–162 on their permanence and unity). Each papal document was checked at its Vatican source with paragraph numbers confirmed: the World Day of Peace 2024 message, Dilexit Nos, Antiqua et Nova, Dilexi Te, and Magnifica Humanitas. The Universal Apostolic Preferences were checked against the Society of Jesus's published formulations. The standard covers three categories of authoritative text, Church teaching, the Rome Call, and the documents of the Society of Jesus.

The verification has found and corrected six errors. Four were found in the working brief during development. The fifth was found after the framework document was archived, and the sixth just after Version 1.1 was published.

• The brief's URL for the World Day of Peace 2024 message was dead. The correct Vatican URL is used and linked.
• The brief said Magnifica Humanitas warns against humans seeing themselves as “probabilistic functions.” The encyclical does not use that phrase. Its actual language warns against translating “the mystery of the person” into “data and performance” (¶10). The accurate wording is used throughout.
• The brief listed the “Italian government” among the Rome Call's original signatories. The signatory was the Italian Minister for Technological Innovation.
• The brief omitted Antiqua et Nova and Dilexi Te entirely, and the former is the Church's most systematic document on AI. Both were added.
• The framework quoted the second Universal Apostolic Preference without its closing clause, “in a mission of reconciliation and justice,” and without an ellipsis to mark the cut. Found after Version 1.0 was archived and recorded here at that time. Version 1.1 completes the quotation.
• The framework document and this site cited the Magnifica Humanitas warning about translating “the mystery of the person” into “data and performance” to ¶9. The passage is at ¶10. Found in the release check for Version 1.1, just after it was published. This site was corrected the same day, and Version 1.2 of the framework document carries the fix.

Separate from the corrections, the record tracks refinements, wording that was imprecise without misrepresenting a source. The framework described the Rome Call website's wording as “shortened summary wording.” The website in fact presents condensed formulations, and in one case a renamed one, with the signed document's Responsibility appearing on the website as Accountability. This site's prose now says so, and Version 1.1 of the framework document adopts the precise description. Two further refinements came out of the August 7, 2026 re-verification. Two quotations from Antiqua et Nova (¶44 and ¶94) begin mid-sentence in the source, and their initial capitals had been adjusted silently, which APA style permits. They are now marked with brackets, “[U]ltimate” and “[F]undamental,” on this site and in Version 1.3. And the framework document's statement of the verification standard named two categories of authoritative text where the standard covers three. Version 1.3 names all three, adding the documents of the Society of Jesus.

The record is published for a reason. A process that discloses its corrections can be examined on the ones it has not found yet. If you find an error, say so, and it will be corrected and recorded here.

Four critiques are not answered above, because they should not be answered quickly.

The description, not the system. The auditor and the workshop judge what an organization writes about a system, not the system itself. A well-built system poorly described will score badly, and a fluent description can outrun the engineering behind it. The instruments measure the quality of an organization's articulation, which is what committees and users encounter, and that is a limit as well as a method.

Our common home. Building this site, and every query its auditor runs, consumes energy and water in data centers. The use was judged proportionate to the end. That is a judgment rather than a receipt, and the Universal Apostolic Preferences oblige us to keep making it rather than make it once.

Labor and formation. No one's work was displaced by this small, single-author project. At institutional scale, that answer does not generalize, and this is why the framework asks who maintains a system and who benefits first. We claim no exemption from those questions.

The heart. Dilexit Nos asks whether an age of frictionless tools erodes the interior life that gives work its meaning. Whether a discipline of discernment fully answers that worry, we do not claim to know. We hold it as the Examen holds everything, as a question to return to rather than a problem marked solved.

A framework that cannot survive its own examination deserves to fail it. This page is our attempt to pass honestly, and a standing invitation to tell us where we have not.