2 commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Daniel	e244ee5240	feat: modifying a deck can see it ... The model editing a deck could not see it, which made most of what people actually ask for unanswerable: "that slide is too crowded", "the diagram is in the wrong place", "this one looks empty" are facts about the rendered page, not about the JSON. When a vision model is configured, modifying now renders the current deck — with its figures, unlike the review pass, which runs while they are still being drawn — and hands the model one image per slide alongside the JSON. Same pipeline as review, reused rather than reimplemented: pptx, Gotenberg, PDF, pdftoppm, capped at MAX_SLIDES. The vision model then does the editing, which is a second and separately measured benefit. On a real 20-slide deck, ds-deepseek-v4-flash returned the deck unchanged for "make it better" — the echo reported yesterday — while openrouter-gemini-3.8-flash applied it. So the stronger model fixes the echo even without sight. A model the author picks explicitly still wins over both. The result is rendered and reviewed again. Generation-only was the old rule, on the reasoning that refining is a text edit; it is not. The edit is made against how the deck looked before it, so a slide that gains two bullets only overflows once it is rendered again. The reviewer may reposition but is held to the same words, so a verification pass cannot quietly undo what was just asked for. Whether an instruction achieved anything is judged on the model's edit, before the reviewer runs, or a reviewer nudging a slide into two columns would mask an instruction that did nothing. Sight is an upgrade, never a dependency: no vision model, Gotenberg down, a render that fails — each falls through to editing blind, and a test covers each of those paths. Verified against two mutations: keeping the text model when images are attached, and dropping the verification pass, each fail exactly one test. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dv6sqaY6Vq3ChZHMem3cnU	2026-09-12 06:55:16 +02:00
Daniel	9d307fd442	feat: a vision model looks at the rendered deck and fixes the layout ... The model that writes a deck never sees it. It cannot tell that slide four overflowed, that a nine-item list would read better in two columns, or that two labelled groups want to be a comparison — those are facts about the rendered page, not about the text. So each generated deck is now rendered to PDF through Gotenberg, rasterised to one image per slide with pdftoppm, and shown to a vision model. Off unless an administrator names a reviewer, in its own admin card because it is the one setting that spends money on every generation without a user having asked for anything. One pass, on generation only: a second pass costs as much as the first and fixes far less, and refining is a text edit. It returns a patch, not a deck. Asking for the corrected deck back put the reply in proportion to the deck rather than to the number of problems, and a fourteen-slide deck came back cut off mid-object at every output budget the provider would honour — measured twice before changing shape. The patch is better for a second reason. The reviewer names a slide and an action — two columns, one column, split after bullet N, compare with these two labels — and the server moves the text it already has. The words never pass through the model, so a review cannot reword, drop or invent a single bullet. That is a stronger guarantee than instructing it not to and checking afterwards. The check runs anyway, because a bug in applyChanges would be as bad as a model rewriting the words and worse for being trusted: body text must come out the same multiset, figures the same set, and a heading may only be reused or extended. A continuation heading is the reviewer's one piece of text and is replaced when it does not continue anything. Nothing here can fail a generation — no reviewer, an unreachable one, an unparseable reply, a deck too long to look at, or a patch that applies to nothing each return the deck that was written. Verified end to end against a deck with a deliberately overloaded slide: three slides rendered and sent, one change returned, ten bullets split into five and five under "Stepwise Management … (continued)", text intact. Left switched off; enable it under Admin. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dv6sqaY6Vq3ChZHMem3cnU	2026-09-11 21:38:18 +02:00