I am happy to narrow it further.
I took the time to read the documentation, ask ChatGPT to summarise what I found, and then reduced my follow-up to a simple request:
«Which of points 1–7 are materially wrong?»
That is not the same as asking you to audit “multiple screens” of AI output.
If the answer is “2 and 5 are incorrect”, or even “I do not have time to review it”, that is perfectly fine.
However, dismissing it as “a multiple screens long AI prompt” does not only not answer the question, it comes off as abrasive.
As for the documentation, the confusing parts are exactly those I listed: retention, lifecycle management, browser ingestion, storage limits, deletion, multi-user behaviour, and, most importantly, what Hister actually is and who it is for.
What’s disappointing is not that you disagreed with the AI summary. AIs are idiots.
It that after inviting questions and feedback, your response to a genuine attempt to understand the project is curt dismissal.
The inner workings of Hister may be obvious to you; they are not obvious to others.
The point is that you came here specifically to invite questions and feedback.
“TL;DR” does not encourage the sort of community engagement you ostensibly came here to seek.