3 commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Daniel	154b896d5b	feat: Word is built by python-docx from the same typed source as the deck ... Pandoc reads markdown, so every Word export had to flatten the resource to markdown first — and a deck flattened to markdown stops being one. A comparison became two headings and two lists, a callout became bold text, and a figure became nothing at all, because markdown has nowhere to put it. src/utils/docSpec.js reduces either source to the same blocks: a stored deck where there is one, the markdown where there is not. scripts/render_docx.py draws them. A comparison comes out as a labelled two-column table, a callout as a shaded box, a table as a real table, a figure embedded at its own aspect ratio with its caption, and speaker notes as muted indented text. The deck wins over the markdown beside it, because that markdown is a serialisation of the deck and reading it instead would be reading a lossy copy of what is right there. Word now carries the figures too. The export route skipped fetching them for docx, which was correct when pandoc could not place them and wrong the moment this could. Pandoc stays installed and stays the fallback: a plainer document beats a failed download. Both renderers now share one spawn helper. Verified end to end: a deck with two figures exported as a six-page Word document with both images embedded (537KB, two files in word/media), rendered to PDF and looked at — the comparison is a labelled table, the figure sits at its true aspect ratio, and the notes read as notes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dv6sqaY6Vq3ChZHMem3cnU	2026-09-11 21:58:53 +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
Daniel	fa2e7523d6	docs: My Resources, sign-in codes, invitations, and what the image carries ... Nothing documented My Resources, the slide renderer, PubMed or web search, and the authentication doc predated both sign-in codes and registration invitations. docs/my-resources.md is new and covers the feature end to end: what a resource is, where its material comes from, why both searches run in the route rather than as tools the model never called, why keyword engines get the topic while retrieval gets the instruction too, how a presentation is designed as a deck rather than written as markdown, the separate multi-image path, and what the export pipeline is made of. docs/authentication.md gains sign-in codes — storage, lifetime, reuse, supersession, guessing, and that two-factor still applies — and registration invitations, including the exact condition that decides when a code may be deleted and why it is written to match the status the list displays. Both new rate limits are in the table, with a note that Express matches app.use paths on segment boundaries, so a new sign-in endpoint needs its own limiter or it has none at all. docs/deployment.md now says what the runtime image carries and why — pandoc for Word, python3 with apk-installed lxml and pillow for the slide renderer, python-pptx pinned, and that PDF conversion is not in the image at all but goes to Gotenberg, so Word and PowerPoint still work when it is down. docs/configuration.md picks up LOGIN_RATE_LIMIT_MAX, LOGIN_CODE_RATE_LIMIT_MAX and GOTENBERG_URL, none of which were listed. README gains a My Resources section and indexes the two new docs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Dv6sqaY6Vq3ChZHMem3cnU	2026-09-11 20:49:10 +02:00