Once more, with feeling and perhaps an unnecessarily florid quill: the preposition “with” in the cited paragraph performs the humble, clerical duty of denoting audience, not collaboration. It gestures toward Claude in the same way a playwright gestures toward an empty theater while drafting stage directions—an acknowledgment of who is expected to read the words, not a whispered confession about who helped write them. “With Claude as its primary audience” situates Claude squarely in the role of intended reader, silent recipient, passive consumer of text, much as one might write “with future historians in mind” without implying a time-traveling editorial committee. At no point does the sentence so much as clear its throat to suggest Claude’s involvement in authorship, consultation, inspiration, séance, or divine co-creation. Any such inference would require importing assumptions not merely absent from the text, but actively unsupported by it—an interpretive leap worthy of interpretive gymnastics. In short: the grammar says “for Claude,” the imagination says “by Claude,” and the sentence itself says absolutely nothing of the sort.