How the Site Was Built and Quality Checked
A transparent overview of the workflow, QA checks, and limits of the AI-assisted publication process.
Purpose
This page explains how AI Bible Commentary was built and checked. The purpose is transparency, not self-promotion. The project is intentionally presented as a governed study aid rather than an inspired, infallible, academic, or ecclesiastical authority.
Summary of the workflow
The site was developed through a staged process:
- Define conservative evangelical theological and hermeneutical guardrails.
- Define literary units and page structures.
- Generate first-pass material under strict prompts.
- Route higher-risk material for additional review.
- Run QA-linting across the corpus.
- Investigate revision flags rather than blindly trusting QA output.
- Clean minor-warning rows.
- Render public pages and JSON sidecars.
- Test links, footers, copy buttons, data paths, page counts, and reader-facing content.
- Publish only material that passed the defined checks.
What was checked
QA checks were designed to identify doctrinal overstatement, speculative typology or prophecy claims, unsupported certainty in debated passages, weak handling of difficult texts, reader-facing ambiguity, broken or malformed study links, missing fields or malformed structured data, internal QA or development notes leaking into public pages, and footer, JSON, copy-button, and publication errors.
What QA does not mean
QA does not make the commentary inspired, infallible, exhaustive, or equal to established scholarship. It reduces known risks, but it does not remove the need for Scripture-first testing, prayerful discernment, mature teachers, and local church accountability.