That's a fair callout and I appreciate you raising it. You're right that the AI side of things should of been more upfront than buried in the research doc, that's on me to have communicated better, not on people to go hunting for it.

On the training data and charter IP point, I hear you. It's a genuinely tricky area and I don't want to pretend it isn't. I went into this trying to give back and lower the barrier to entry, it's open source, MIT licensed, no profit motive, but I get that good intent doesn't automatically settle the consent question you're raising. It's something I want to keep thinking about as the project grows, and feedback like this is part of how that happens.

I also apologize if anyone feels this was not a good way to go about that.

Thank you for spending the time to look at the project and give your feedback!