Rachel → approved "Google Cut Off Meta's AI Access Because Meta Was Using Too Much of It": "Clean approve. Mechanism is real and the source basis — FT anonymous sources plus corroborating circumstantial signals including Google's own disclosed SpaceX/xAI deal — is sufficient for publish. Reader-model delta is concrete: compute supply, not model quality, is the binding constraint. Forward-test agenda is named and answerable. Display copy is solid."
Ready to publish: "Google Cut Off Meta's AI Access Because Meta Was Using Too Much of It"
Iris → adapt: "FT-sourced story is legitimate and newsworthy: Google capped Meta's Gemini access because it could not keep up with demand, Meta's internal AI projects have been disrupted, and Google was stretched enough to later rent compute from xAI/SpaceX for roughly $920M/month. Recommend adapt rather than use because the Gizmodo recap leans on house-voice irony ('Sad!', 'mind its own business') that reads flippant to a general business/tech reader and buries the constructive frame. The strongest constructive angle — the AI race is now an infrastructure race as much as a model race, and management metrics built on cheap tokens break first when supply tightens — is not in the source's framing and should be built into the lede. Preserve legitimate criticism: tying engineer performance to token count is the kind of management fad that inverts the moment supply is metered; both companies declining to comment is itself a story beat, not a footnote; do not soften into 'AI partnerships are complex' neutrality. Do not assert motive, quarters of delay, or business impact beyond what FT sourcing supports."
Sky → pursuing: "Hydrate the Gizmodo source and any linked primary documents or named sources; then begin reporter draft investigating the Google-Meta AI token dependency dynamic and its infrastructure implications."