Conversation
- Replace bullet-style AI comparison with natural paragraph form - Remove all bold formatting from bullet points throughout document - Replace CC-specific terminology with generic AI platform language
- Add footnote references to factual claims in 'SoR領域の現実' section - Clarify section labels: observations vs survey data vs market research - Add placeholder URLs to footnotes (to be filled with actual sources) - Link specific claims to their evidence sources
- Add METI DX Report 2018 for IT budget and modernization challenges - Add IPA IT Survey 2024 for legacy system prevalence (56.6%) - Add METI IT workforce survey 2019 for talent shortage (790k by 2030) - Add GitHub Copilot research and GitClear report for AI tool bias - Include specific statistics and full URLs for all sources - Clarify third section as 'market research and observations'
- Add 'What is Nabledge' section with overview diagram - Add 'Why Nabledge matters' section mapping to SoR challenges - Reorder sections: What → Why → How → Why it works → Architecture - Maintain all existing content while improving information flow - Follow inverted pyramid structure for press releases
- Center solution around 3 phases instead of Nabledge tool description - Each phase clearly shows what you get and who benefits - Map each phase to specific SoR challenges from problem section - Keep technical details (why it works, architecture) at end - Improve scope and coherence with full solution vision
- List all 3 phases with original Japanese descriptions at beginning - Matches descriptions from detailed phase sections - Readers understand what '3 phases' means before reading further
- Phase 1: 資産をAI-Readyに解き放つ (not 暗黙知の明示化) - Phase 2: エキスパートレベルの開発をチームで実現する (not 日常業務でのAI協働) - Phase 3: 経験を組織資産に変え、競争力を高め続ける (new) - Focus on business value, not technical details - Use original customer-centric expressions from input
- Show Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3 progression - Each phase shows what you get (business value) - Illustrates how phases build on each other - Remove mismatched Nabledge workflow diagram from this section
Technical Writer expert review improvements: - Add context and reading guide to Phase 1 Unlock diagram - Fix heading hierarchy in press document (convert bold to proper h4) - Standardize footnote formatting with consistent punctuation - Clarify terminology consistency (ガイド → 開発ガイド) Expert review saved to .pr/00090/review-by-technical-writer.md Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Change graph direction from LR (left-right) to TD (top-down) for better vertical layout of the three phases. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reduce AI-like formality throughout documents: - Shorten long compound sentences - Replace formal connectors with casual expressions - Use direct statements instead of passive voice - Add rhythm variation with sentence breaks - Change "ではなく" to "じゃなく/じゃない" - Change "することで" to shorter alternatives - Split explanatory sentences for better flow Content unchanged, only style improvements. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Based on TIS press release style guide: - Restore です・ます調 throughout all documents - Replace casual expressions (じゃない→ではない) - Use proper connectors (により、ことで、ため) - Maintain professional but not overly stiff tone - Keep sentence rhythm and avoid excessive formality - Add appropriate politeness to technical descriptions Reference: TIS corporate press releases use consistent polite form while remaining accessible and professional. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Restructure from 3 subsections to 2 for clarity: - 調査結果 (Survey findings): Objective data with citations - 仮説 (Hypothesis): Observed patterns and analytical insights This separation clarifies what is proven fact vs. reasoned analysis. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add explicit subjects to improve readability: - あるべき姿: Add 組織/チーム/基幹系システム as subjects - Phase descriptions: Add Nabledge as primary actor - 何が得られるか → 企業が得られるもの - 誰にとっての価値: Replace passive voice with Nabledge as subject - Unlockの流れ: Add Nabledge/Nabチーム as actors - ポイント sections: Add subjects (Unlock/Nabledge/Nablarch) - 2つの軸: Add Nabledge/組織 as subjects This makes it clear who/what performs each action. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Remove all --- horizontal rules except YAML frontmatter. Improves document flow and reduces visual clutter. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Make judgment capability more concrete: - Before: "Nablarch固有の判断力" - After: "Nablarchで実績ある大規模ミッションクリティカルなシステム開発・運用ノウハウに基づいた判断力" Expand collaboration scope: - Before: "開発者と協働しながら実装・テスト・レビューを実行" - After: "PM、アーキテクト、設計者、開発者と協働しながら実現性検証、設計支援、実装/テスト/レビューなど幅広い工程で頼れる存在" This clarifies the foundation of judgment and breadth of coverage. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Clarify the value proposition: - GitHub issue/PR as interface (接点) - Humans focus on requirements definition and approval - Humans focus on business and technical judgment (本質的な作業) - Nabledge handles execution work This makes it clear that Nabledge enables humans to focus on strategic decision-making. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Transform all "誰にとっての価値" and "人ごとの価値" sections from negative/problem-focused to positive/capability-focused: Phase 1 improvements: - "探し回る必要がなくなる" → "必要な情報へ即座にアクセスできる" - Add "AI-Ready移行計画を立案できる" for architects - Add "PJ固有のドキュメント構造を設定するだけで業務仕様を自動抽出" Phase 2 improvements: - "レビュー負荷が下がり、見落としが減る" → "本質的な設計レビューに専念できる" - "人の入れ替わりに強くなる" → "安定した開発体制を維持できる" - Emphasize "価値ある業務に注力できる" Phase 3 improvements: - "同じ失敗を繰り返さない" → "実績に基づく確実な開発を実現できる" - "PJ終了時に消えない" → "組織資産として永続的に活用できる" - Add "エビデンスに基づく" for decision-making All statements now focus on what users can achieve rather than what problems are avoided. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Remove "PJ固有のドキュメント構造を設定するだけで、Nabledgeが業務仕様を自動抽出" from architect value propositions. Keep the focus on high-level value rather than implementation details. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- Move "全体像" before "NablarchとNabledgeの関係" - Simplify phase labels in overview diagram (remove Japanese subtitles) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Documents
Note: This PR is for discussion and review purposes. It does not follow the standard workflow rules (expert review, test execution, etc.) as these are draft vision documents for internal planning.