The Triple Hat Critics™

A Free Manuscript Review for Fellow Authors on My Advance Reader Teams

Triple Hat Critics™ – Five Open Advance Reader Teams | Up to Five Manuscript Reviews | FiveYearLife.com/TripleHatCritics — The Triple Hat Critics™ — A Virtual Manuscript Review By A Senior Editor, Literary Critic, and Marketing Director, Each Modeled To Review From The Perspective Of A Senior Professional With Approximately 30 Years Of Experience. Built By Robert Lee Goodman Over 18 Months For His Own Five Books. Join Any Or All Five Currently Open Advance Reader Teams. © FiveYearLife.Com

Welcome. If you found your way to this page, you are probably a fellow author. Maybe writing your first book. Maybe working on your third. Maybe quietly building something at night while your day job takes the rest of your life. Maybe holding a completed manuscript you have not quite figured out what to do with yet.

I have been in every one of those places over the last 18 months while writing my own five books — four nonfiction and one novel. This page is my thank-you offer to fellow authors who join one of my Advance Reader Teams.

Everything described here is absolutely free. No cost. No upsell. No paid tier. No “premium” version. Not now. Not ever. This is not a service I sell to anyone.

Right now, five Advance Reader Teams are open. Three are for complete, edited manuscripts already in final prepublication review. Two more — Efficient Love™ and Stark Naked Startup™ — The Novel — are accepting ART reservations now while those books are approximately 90% and 80% complete, respectively. Each ART you join and complete can earn you one separate Triple Hat Critics™ review. That means the current opportunity is potentially worth as many as five separate manuscript reviews while those five Teams remain open.

The Wall I Hit at Month Six

Somewhere around month six of writing my first manuscript, I hit a wall.

I gave a chapter to a writer friend. She made three specific criticisms I immediately recognized as correct. I rewrote based on her feedback. Gave the rewrite to a different friend. He made three completely different specific criticisms — also correct.

I realized a manuscript at any given moment has multiple things wrong simultaneously, and different readers see different subsets. If you rewrite in response to any one reader, you fix what they saw and miss what they did not. The next reader sees what the previous one missed. You end up in a rewrite spiral that never converges.

I needed a way to get multiple qualified perspectives at the same time. Not one after another.

What I Built (Instead of Paying Thousands Every Time I Wanted a Fresh Analysis)

The obvious answer would have been to keep hiring human professionals every time I substantially changed a draft. But getting the combination of developmental editorial analysis, literary critique, market-positioning analysis, and publication-readiness assessment I wanted from human professionals can run into several thousand dollars for each fresh round of comparable analysis. I was writing five books and repeatedly revising all of them. If I had purchased a comparable combination of professional analysis every time I wanted another serious look at a new draft, I could easily have spent more on repeated assessments than many first-time authors earn from their first several books.

The alternative I tried first was generic AI. Here is what I discovered, in painful detail: generic praise dressed up as analysis. Pattern-matched summaries that could apply to any book in any genre. Hallucinated citations. Fabricated references. The specific flavor of AI feel-good slop that will bald-facedly claim to have done everything you asked when in fact it has done almost none of it.

So I built my own tool.

It took me 18 months and four different large language models — Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Galaxy — to develop a prompt that reliably produces genuine critique and meaningful guidance instead of AI feel-good slop. The current prompt is 7,100 characters long. It has been rewritten more times than most people rewrite their own manuscripts.

I call it my virtual Triple Hat Critics™.

What the Triple Hat Critics™ Actually Do

The prompt forces the AI to behave itself. It wears three separate hats and produces three completely independent narrative critiques of the same manuscript, each modeled to review from the perspective of a senior professional with approximately 30 years of experience. Meet:

🎩 Ed, The Senior Editor reviews structural integrity, chapter coherence, tone consistency, pacing, readability, and preservation of your authorial voice. He delivers a detailed developmental-style editorial critique focused on the same kinds of structural and craft issues a senior professional editor would examine.
🎩 Lois, The Literary Critic analyzes emotional impact, psychological resonance, narrative strength, scene-level writing quality, voice authenticity, and whether your book reads like a professional, memorable work rather than something competent but quietly forgettable.
🎩 Mark, The Marketing Director evaluates commercial viability, differentiation from competing titles, brand and proprietary terminology, back-cover messaging potential, corporate bulk-purchase suitability, audiobook suitability, market positioning, and whether the right readers are likely to find, want, and ultimately buy your book.

Each virtual expert produces a full written narrative critique of your manuscript, followed by their own multi-tier scorecard. A report may typically be 5–25 pages, or whatever length turns out to be right for your specific manuscript — and difficult manuscripts can produce substantially longer reports. Every page includes your book title and author name in the header. It is solely based on your book, with nothing generic about a single part of it.

(Nota bene: The longer the critique of your manuscript, the more problems the three critics probably found! The longest critique I’ve ever gotten, once everything was fixed on the 7,100-character prompt, was a whopping 87-page PDF analysis of my novel Stark Naked Startup! After a long string of expletives, I found virtually all of the suggested fixes NEEDED to be fixed, and my manuscript was much better for having done it.

All five of my current books have each had more than 100 Triple Hat Critics reviews of full manuscripts, partial manuscripts, chapters, or evolving drafts. That adds up to well over 500 substantial review runs across my own books. Separately, the methodology and prompt itself have gone through more than 1,000 development and review cycles as I kept tightening instructions, eliminating generic output, correcting weaknesses, and forcing Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and other models to provide more specific and useful analysis. Some iterations were necessary because the prompt was not yet demanding enough. Others were necessary because my writing still had real editorial, literary, or marketing deficiencies that the newer versions finally exposed.

I tell you all of this to hopefully convince you that a Triple Hat Critics review of your manuscript might, just maybe, be one of the most meaningful insights you gain, and it doesn’t cost you a penny.)

You can also run the Triple Hat Critics on just one completed chapter, or a handful of chapters, if that is where you are in the process. You do not need a completed manuscript to benefit.

Fiction, Nonfiction, or Both

The prompt was originally developed for my novel — Stark Naked Startup™, an erotic romance technothriller — not for the four nonfiction books. The novel required more rewrites than all four nonfiction books combined, even at 4-to-1. There are chapters in that novel I rewrote more than 100 times before the Triple Hat Critics stopped telling me they were still broken.

Yes, the Triple Hat Critics work on fiction. In my case, they worked hardest on the fiction.

What the Triple Hat Critics™ Report Actually Contains — and What It Does Not

The following two lists exist because authors deserve to know exactly what they are getting and exactly what they are not getting. Read both before you decide.

What the Triple Hat Critics™ Review Produces

Every report delivers all of the following, in a single PDF bearing your book title and author name in the header on every page:

Structural integrity analysis: Ed evaluates how your chapters are sequenced and whether each one earns its place — openings, closings, transitions, and the overall arc from first page to last.
Chapter coherence review: Ed identifies chapters or sections that feel misplaced, underweight, or internally inconsistent, and explains specifically why.
Pacing assessment: Ed evaluates whether your narrative or argument moves at the right speed — where it drags, where it rushes, and where it loses the reader before they realize they’ve put the book down.
Tone and voice consistency audit: Ed flags every place where the voice, register, or tone shifts in a way that breaks immersion or undermines credibility — whether you intend it as stylistic or not.
Readability evaluation: Ed assesses sentence-level clarity, paragraph rhythm, and whether your prose invites the reader forward or fights them.
Authorial voice preservation score: Ed specifically evaluates whether the manuscript sounds like you throughout, or whether certain sections have drifted into generic or formulaic writing.
Emotional impact analysis: Lois evaluates whether your writing generates genuine emotional response — not just whether it is technically competent, but whether it moves the reader.
Psychological resonance assessment: Lois identifies which characters, scenarios, or arguments create real identification with the reader, and which feel thin, distant, or abstract.
Narrative strength critique: Lois evaluates the underlying story or argument for whether it has genuine intellectual and emotional weight, not just whether it is competently assembled.
Scene-level writing quality review: Lois works at the level of individual scenes and passages, identifying specific writing that is memorable and specific writing that is generic, hollow, or that squanders its moment.
Voice authenticity assessment: Lois evaluates whether your book sounds like a human being with a specific worldview, or whether it reads like a competent but characterless construction.
Professional-versus-generic diagnostic: Lois gives her honest assessment of whether this reads like a book people will remember or a book they will finish and forget — and why.
Commercial viability analysis: Mark evaluates your book’s real market position — not just whether it is good, but whether it is positioned to find and keep an audience.
Competitive differentiation review: Mark assesses how your book stands apart from the existing titles competing for your reader’s attention, and where it currently doesn’t.
Back-cover messaging potential: Mark evaluates whether your manuscript contains the raw material for compelling jacket copy, and what the strongest version of your pitch actually is.
Brand and proprietary terminology audit: Mark flags your unique frameworks, coined terms, and proprietary concepts — and assesses whether they are landing with the clarity and consistency needed to build a brand around them.
Audiobook suitability assessment: Mark evaluates whether your prose reads naturally in audio format, flags passages that will be difficult to listen to, and assesses whether the listening experience will match the reading experience.
Corporate and bulk-purchase suitability assessment: Mark evaluates whether your nonfiction title has institutional or organizational appeal — whether companies, agencies, or professional organizations might buy it in quantity for employees or clients.
Multi-tier scorecard across 15–20 specific dimensions: Every critique ends with a detailed numerical scorecard — typically 15 to 20 individual metrics scored on a 1 to 10 scale — so you know not just what the problems are but how serious each one is relative to the others and relative to a publication-ready standard.
Integrated synthesis across all three expert perspectives: The report shows you where all three critics agree (your highest-priority fixes) and where they diverge (meaningful differences of opinion that give you real choices rather than mandates).
A Ready for Prime Time verdict: The report concludes with a direct, unvarnished assessment of how close your manuscript is to being publication-ready — and what specifically stands between where it is and where it needs to be.

A note for the technically curious: Yes, this list describes exactly the criteria I built my prompt to evaluate. You are welcome to do it yourself — go ahead and copy and paste this entire list into your AI of choice. Help yourself. But consider the trade-off: what I am offering here is essentially free, in exchange for the light ask of reading part of one of my books. So you can weigh the best use of your time — taking what is free and doing the light ask, or spending whatever it takes to build what took me 18 months and more than 1,000 development and review cycles to create. The list tells you what to ask for. Building a prompt that forces an LLM to actually deliver it at this level of rigor, specificity, and consistency — rather than producing polished-sounding generalities that feel good and tell you nothing — is a different project entirely. I genuinely wish you the best manuscript you can possibly have. Choose whichever path gets you there fastest.

What the Triple Hat Critics™ Does Not Do

This list matters as much as the one above. Read it carefully.

Write or rewrite any sentence in your manuscript. Not one word of the critique output belongs in your book. The Triple Hat Critics™ produce analysis, not prose.
Generate narrative alternatives or suggest replacement text for passages it critiques. It identifies what is not working and why. What to do about it is your decision.
Alter your voice, your structure, or your argument. The critics evaluate what you wrote. They do not reshape it.
Write AI-generated content for inclusion in your manuscript. The report is critique and analysis delivered separately from your book; it does not alter or add content to the manuscript itself. Amazon KDP currently distinguishes AI-generated content from AI-assisted use and does not require disclosure of AI-assisted content. If you intend to submit to a traditional publisher, agent, academic journal, or another platform, check that organization’s current AI policy independently.
Make any changes to your manuscript file. Your manuscript goes in. A PDF critique report comes out. Your manuscript file is never modified.
Provide generic feedback that could apply to any manuscript. Every element of the report references your specific book, your specific chapters, and your specific writing — by title and by name, throughout.
Praise your manuscript to make you feel good. If it is broken, the report will say so specifically and completely. The purpose of this tool is to make manuscripts better, not merely to encourage authors.
Replace human judgment. The three critics are analytical tools. I personally run the methodology, review the resulting output for quality and specificity, and deliver the report directly to you. This is not an automated upload-and-download service. A human being is accountable for what you receive.
Guarantee a particular outcome, publishing deal, reader response, or commercial result. It gives you a rigorous pre-publication analysis. What you do with it is yours.

A Word of Warning

This is not gentle. The Triple Hat Critics Report is raw, unvarnished, candid, systematically applied, and deliberately unsentimental critique designed to make your manuscript substantially better and more marketable. If you are looking for validation, this is not what you want. If you are looking for the kind of honest feedback that will actually improve your book, this is exactly what you want.

One important note: you certainly do not have to take the advice given by these three virtual experts. You are the writer — not these three virtual critics. Take what serves your book. Leave what does not.

The Offer

I do not sell the Triple Hat Review. I do not give away my carefully crafted and highly tuned 7,100-character proprietary prompt. I do not offer anybody else any way to benefit from it.

It is what I built for myself over 18 months while writing my own five books. The one exception is fellow authors who join an Advance Reader Team.

As my thanks for reading at least some of one of my books and providing candid, specific feedback on what worked and what did not, I will run your manuscript through exactly the same rigors I use for my own drafts. Same 7,100-character prompt. Same three virtual experts. Same Ready for Prime Time scorecard.

This is not an automated service where you upload a manuscript and accept whatever an AI happens to generate. I personally run every manuscript through the methodology, review the resulting critique for quality, specificity, completeness, and obvious problems, and deliver the report to you directly. I am not delegating that responsibility to somebody else because I want to make sure what you receive is genuinely useful.

My current target is to deliver your report within about a week of receiving the reader feedback that earns it. That time frame may grow significantly if I am overwhelmed by fellow authors who want their manuscripts critiqued by the Triple Hat Critics. If you are a published author, you will also appreciate the gazillion action items I have for each of my own books between now and Launch Day.

What Counts as Completing the Reader-Feedback Requirement?

This part is important because your Triple Hat Critics™ review is earned by providing meaningful Advance Reader feedback — not merely by signing up for an ART or sending me a generic sentence saying that you liked the book.

I am not grading your writing. I am not looking for polished prose. I am not requiring you to praise the book. I am looking for candid, substantive, book-specific reader reaction that demonstrates you actually read the material and tells me something useful about how the book is landing with a real reader.

To complete an ART’s reader-feedback requirement and earn the associated Triple Hat Critics™ review, your feedback needs to include all of the following:

Tell me specifically what you read. Identify the Action Plans, questions, chapters, scenes, sections, or other recognizable portions of the manuscript you actually read. I need to know what part of the book your comments are based on.
Tell me specifically what worked for you. Identify ideas, examples, passages, explanations, scenes, characters, questions, frameworks, stories, or other elements that particularly held your attention, helped you, surprised you, moved you, made you think, or otherwise worked well — and tell me why.
Tell me specifically what did not work for you. Identify anything that confused you, dragged, repeated itself unnecessarily, felt incomplete, seemed unbelievable, lost your attention, irritated you, failed emotionally, seemed unclear, or otherwise could be improved — and tell me why.
Give me enough book-specific detail that your comments could not simply have been written about any book. Refer to actual material in the manuscript: a particular argument, example, character, scene, question, Action Plan, chapter, concept, story, framework, passage, or other identifiable element.
Tell me the reaction you would give another real reader. If a friend, colleague, family member, or fellow author asked you what this book is actually about, what stood out, and whether you thought it was worth reading, what would you honestly tell them in your own words?

Positive feedback is NOT required. You do not earn a Triple Hat Critics™ review by telling me what you think I want to hear. A thoughtful negative reaction qualifies every bit as much as a positive one. If you dislike something, I want to know what you disliked and why. If something is broken, confusing, boring, repetitive, unbelievable, or simply does not work for you, tell me. That information may be more valuable to me than praise.

What does not qualify by itself? Comments such as “Great book,” “I really liked it,” “Very helpful,” “Interesting read,” “Not my thing,” “I enjoyed the chapters,” “Looks good to me,” or similar sweeping statements that could have been written without actually engaging with the manuscript. Those comments may be sincere, but they do not give me the specific reader information this exchange is designed to produce.

I am deliberately not imposing an arbitrary minimum word count. Three highly specific, thoughtful paragraphs can be far more useful than 1,000 words of generalities. The standard is substance and specificity, not length.

If the feedback you initially send is too general for me to tell what you actually read, what specifically worked, what specifically did not, and why, I will simply ask you for additional detail. You do not lose the opportunity. Once your feedback is substantive and book-specific enough to meet the standard above, you have completed that ART requirement and earned the associated Triple Hat Critics™ review.

The standard is simple: prove to me through your comments that you actually engaged with the book, and give me feedback I can genuinely use to make it better or understand how real readers are responding to it.

The other requirement is equally straightforward: read the agreed portion of the book and send me candid, substantive, book-specific feedback within two weeks of receiving the active manuscript opportunity.

How Many Manuscript Reviews Do You Get?

This free offer includes one separate Triple Hat Critics™ review for every Advance Reader Team you join and complete.

Join one ART and complete its qualifying reader-feedback requirement: earn one review. Join three and complete all three: earn three reviews. Join all five currently open ARTs and complete all five: you can ultimately earn five separate Triple Hat Critics reviews.

Those reviews do NOT have to be of the same manuscript.

You have several choices:

Use multiple reviews as checkpoints on the same book. Submit your current manuscript, use the first Triple Hat report to revise it, submit the substantially improved draft for a later earned review, revise again, and continue as additional ART reviews become available.
Use different reviews on completely different books. Your first earned review might be for your novel. Your second could be for an entirely different nonfiction manuscript. Your third could be for Book 2 of a series. Each earned review belongs to you; it does not have to follow the same manuscript.
Mix the two approaches. Use two reviews on successive versions of one manuscript, then use another review on a completely different book.
Use a review before the manuscript is complete. A completed chapter or substantial group of chapters can be reviewed if catching a structural or narrative problem now is more valuable than waiting until the entire manuscript is finished.

Because each earned benefit is one review, my honest advice is to include as much ready-to-review material as reasonably makes sense when you submit it. Do not waste a review by sending a few pages today and expecting to add more pieces to the same review next week.

That said, it can be extremely worthwhile to submit sooner rather than later — especially if your manuscript is still evolving. Catching major structural or narrative flaws early lets you pivot before you have written another 30,000 words on top of a foundation that needs rebuilding. Better to know at 40,000 words than at 90,000.

And if you use multiple ART opportunities on the same book, you gain something even more valuable: fresh checkpoints after major revisions. The manuscript you submit for Review #2 can be substantially better than the one the critics saw for Review #1. Review #3 can test what still remains after you fix the problems exposed by Review #2.

Nota Bene — Five ARTs Are Open Now — Three Complete Manuscripts Plus Two Reserve-Now Opportunities

These manuscript reviews are available only while an Advance Reader Team is open. Each Team has a limited number of openings, and once a Team is complete, no more applications will be accepted for that book — and no more Triple Hat Critics reviews will be earnable through it.

Right now, all five of my current Advance Reader Teams are open.

Three are for complete, edited manuscripts that are in final prepublication review and ready for Advance Readers now:

Your Last Paycheck™
Reset Protocol™
Reset Protocol Workbook™

These are not massively incomplete drafts being sent out in the hope that they may someday become books. I consider all three manuscripts complete and at the final prepublication stage. My current target is to publish them within roughly the next two weeks once I receive the level of final Advance Reader feedback I am seeking and finish the remaining production details.

The manuscripts themselves are complete. Remaining publishing-production items — including final full print-cover artwork with the back cover and spine — do not change the readiness of the manuscript content for Advance Reader review.

Two additional books already have active Advance Reader Team openings and are accepting reservations now, even though their manuscripts are not yet ready for download:

Efficient Love™ — approximately 90% complete by my current best estimate as its author.
Stark Naked Startup™ — The Novel — approximately 80% complete by my current best estimate as its author.

You can reserve your ART spots for those two books now. Their slots have already begun filling even before the manuscripts are available. When each manuscript is ready, ART members who reserved a place will receive it and can then complete the reader-feedback requirement that earns the associated Triple Hat Critics review.

The delayed timing of those two manuscripts can actually work in your favor as a fellow author. You could earn one or more reviews from the three complete books now, revise your manuscript in response, and later use your reserved Efficient Love™ or Stark Naked Startup™ ART opportunity as another checkpoint on a substantially revised draft.

Or use the later review on a completely different manuscript. The review you earn through an ART is not permanently tied to the manuscript you submitted previously.

In other words: the current five-ART structure potentially gives you not just one free manuscript critique, but a sequence of independent opportunities you can use strategically as your writing develops.

Reserve the spots you want while they are still open. Once an ART fills, that review opportunity closes with it.

Here Is the Deal (In Plain English)

You receive one Triple Hat Critics™ manuscript review for every Advance Reader Team you join and complete.

Join one ART, get one review. Join three, get three reviews. Join all five currently open ARTs, and you can ultimately earn five reviews.

Those reviews can be:

five different checkpoints on one evolving manuscript,
reviews of five entirely different manuscripts,
or any combination in between.

The other requirement is equally straightforward: read the agreed portion of the book and send me candid, substantive, book-specific feedback within two weeks of receiving the active manuscript opportunity. Your comments must meet the reader-feedback standard explained above. Not the whole book. Not polished writing. Not praise. Just specific, honest reactions to what you actually read — what worked, what did not, and why.

For Efficient Love™ and Stark Naked Startup™, which are accepting ART reservations before their manuscripts are ready, that feedback clock obviously cannot begin until I actually send you the manuscript to read.

Positive feedback is never required to earn your Triple Hat Critics™ review. Critical or negative feedback qualifies just as fully when it is substantive and specific.

If your feedback includes favorable comments that you genuinely believe, by sending them to me you authorize me to quote those favorable comments, accurately and in context, in prelaunch or post-launch publicity and advertising related to that book. I will not turn negative comments into positive endorsements, and the presence or absence of favorable comments has no effect whatsoever on whether you earn your manuscript review.

My goal — the honest goal behind this whole exchange — is to collect meaningful, candid reader reaction that helps me improve these books and understand how they are landing with real readers. Some of that reaction may also provide genuine favorable comments useful for prelaunch and post-launch marketing. That is what makes the exchange fair for both of us. You get a serious, personalized manuscript review. I get real reader insight rather than generic praise.

Your Report Is Yours

Your Triple Hat Critics Report is yours to share — publicly or privately — however you find useful. Tough critiques shared publicly are the strongest possible signal to other authors that this is not AI feel-good slop. Tag me if you post it, or do not. Either way is fine.

Join an Advance Reader Team

Every Advance Reader Team is free. Every benefit — including the Triple Hat Critics review for fellow authors — applies to all of them. Choose whichever book fits you best, or join more than one:

Your Last Paycheck™ ART (open now — complete manuscript available now) — Financial triage after the layoff, plus a map of 100 AI job and career titles built on the Compound Knowledge™ you already have.
Reset Protocol™ ART (open now — complete manuscript available now) — 108 questions across 22 chapters. From your Current Point A™ to your Most Desired Point B™.
Reset Protocol Workbook™ ART (open now — complete manuscript available now) — The daily-tactics companion. Every question gets two pages. Every page a doing page.
Efficient Love™ ART (open now — reserve your spot; manuscript approximately 90% complete) — The Three Lists, the Ten Filters™, and the 17 Dragon Alerts™. Built from 1,200 first dates.
Stark Naked Startup™ ART (open now — reserve your spot; manuscript approximately 80% complete) — Book 1 of a planned four-novel series. Intense, romance-forward erotic techno-thriller. Explicit content (18+).

Or start at the main Advance Reader Team page for the full overview.

Questions?

Email me directly: ARC@FiveYearLife.com. Put “Triple Hat Critics” in the subject line so I catch it fast.

Thanks for reading this far. Whatever you decide about the Advance Reader Team, I hope your own book finds its readers.

Thanks,

Robert

Robert Lee Goodman, MBA
CEO and Publisher, Good-Man LLC
Founder and Author, Five Year Life™ Series
44X Founder · Rocket Scientist ·
33K Compound Knowledgist™ ·
Chief Dragonslayer™ – Business & Love ·
Novelist Who Successfully Found His Heroine™

PS — A Note on AI, Publishing Policies, and What Any of This Means for You

If you found this page through a writing group, you may have already seen the ongoing debate about AI and publishing. It is a real debate, and it deserves a straight answer rather than a dismissal. The following is my personal read of the current landscape, offered in good faith. I am not a lawyer; I am not a publishing industry authority, and this is not legal or professional advice. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

One problem with the debate is that several very different uses of AI are often discussed as though they were the same thing. AI that creates the words, images, or translations that become part of a published book is not the same activity as AI used to analyze, critique, edit, error-check, or otherwise assist with content the author created.

Amazon KDP explicitly distinguishes AI-generated content from AI-assisted content in its current Content Guidelines. KDP currently requires authors to disclose AI-generated text, images, or translations. KDP also states that AI-assisted content does not require disclosure and describes AI-assisted use as including AI-based tools used to edit, refine, error-check, or otherwise improve content the author created.

You can read Amazon’s current policy directly here: Amazon KDP Content Guidelines.

The Triple Hat Critics™ never writes or rewrites a sentence for your manuscript. It does not generate replacement prose for you to paste into the book. Your manuscript goes into the review process exactly as you wrote it, and a separate PDF containing critique and analysis comes back out. Your manuscript file itself is never modified.

Based on my reading of Amazon’s current definitions, using AI in this way to analyze and critique author-created material — without having AI generate the actual content you publish — falls on the AI-assisted side of Amazon’s distinction. Amazon currently says AI-assisted content does not require disclosure. That said, Amazon’s policies evolve. Verify the current rules yourself before publishing.

For the vast majority of authors who visit this page, Amazon self-publishing may be the path — as it is mine. If that describes you, Amazon’s own current policy is the framework most directly relevant to your KDP publication. Traditional publishers, literary agents, academic journals, contests, and other organizations may maintain their own separate and evolving AI policies. If your goal is a Big Five deal, traditional representation, a particular journal, contest, or another publication route, study that organization’s current policy independently. I am not in a position to provide authoritative guidance for every publisher or organization.

On Grammarly, specifically, since I know many authors use it and others like it: Grammarly itself openly describes its products as using AI, and it now offers explicitly generative features that can compose, rewrite, ideate, and reply. Those generative functions are different from simply checking spelling, grammar, punctuation, readability, or similar problems in text you already wrote. I use Grammarly’s conventional grammar functions on my own manuscripts; I do not use its generative rewriting features. Again, decide what tools you are personally comfortable using and verify the policies that apply to wherever you intend to publish.

There is also a broader ethical debate that no Amazon policy can settle for you. Some writers do not want AI involved anywhere in their creative process, regardless of whether the AI writes a single word of the finished manuscript. That is a personal position I respect. The Triple Hat Critics™ will not be the right offer for every author.

The Triple Hat Critics™ does not write your manuscript. It analyzes your manuscript. Amazon KDP currently draws an explicit distinction between AI-generated content and AI-assisted use around content the author created. Other publishers and organizations may draw additional lines. Where you come down on the broader debate is your call to make. This offer exists regardless.

“`

Job loss is never just a financial event. It's an identity shock, a loss of stability, and a rupture in how you understand your own value. And in today's economy, finding stable work often takes far longer than people expect — especially as AI continues to reshape entire professions.

Your Last Paycheck™ was written to prevent panic-driven decisions during one of the most vulnerable periods of a person's life — and equally for the millions still employed who see the writing on the wall.

Part One provides a calm, step-by-step financial triage plan for the critical early weeks: what to secure, what to protect, how to preserve both finances and emotional footing.

Part Two maps your new career path in the Age of AI — 100 AI job and career titles you've probably never heard of. No code required. You are not starting over. You are leveling up.

For more information: FiveYearLife.com/YourLastPaycheck

There comes a point in nearly every life when the internal alignment that once held everything together begins to fracture. You feel it before you can explain it — a heaviness, a resistance, a sense that you are living slightly out of phase with yourself.

Reset Protocol™ exists for that moment. It guides you through 108 carefully sequenced questions designed to reveal patterns you've lived with for years, surface truths you may have been avoiding, and help you see your life with clarity rather than judgment.

You'll also learn the Five-Year Lens™ — a future-focused way to evaluate decisions based on who you are becoming, not just what you're trying to escape. Not the familiar path, but the one most aligned with what you actually want.

Reset Protocol™ is not about blowing up your life; it's about realignment — done deliberately, honestly, and with realistic compassion. It's how you move beyond the road less traveled and step onto the road most desired.

For more information: FiveYearLife.com/ResetProtocol

Some people prefer to read and reflect. Others need to engage, write, and move. This Workbook is built for action.

The Reset Protocol Workbook™ transforms insight into execution. It follows the same 108 carefully sequenced questions, but provides structured space to capture your answers, clarify your thinking, and turn reflection into forward momentum.

This is where your Reset Protocol becomes your own — not just something you understand, but something you actively work through, decision by decision.

Whether you use it alongside the main book or on its own, the purpose is the same: to move you from awareness into alignment, and from alignment into action.

For more information: FiveYearLife.com/ResetProtocolWorkbook

"I had 1,200 first dates" sounds like a gimmick. It wasn't. It was the byproduct of an accidental experiment that started with a simple website: NovelistSeeksHeroine.com.

That page described the 28 traits I believed mattered most for long-term compatibility. More than 15,000 women responded, convinced they matched. What followed was a decade-long journey — roughly 1,200 first dates, over 300 second dates, and a hard-earned education in the difference between attraction, projection, and true alignment.

Out of those 15,000, out of those 1,200 first dates, there was one — and only one — woman I asked to marry me. She said yes. That was more than two decades ago… and we're still happily together and counting.

But this book isn't about my story. It's about yours.

Efficient Love™ shows you how to avoid years of unnecessary detours, identify real compatibility earlier, and find the person who is right for you — where you also happen to be right for them.

It distills everything learned from that journey — including the Three Lists — into a practical, repeatable approach you can apply immediately to your own search.

For more information: FiveYearLife.com/EfficientLove

Stark Naked Startup™: A Novel – Book 1 — Loneliness Epidemic, Solved By An AI Startup. Sexual Intimacy and Desire, Uncontrollably Addictive. Unintended Consequences, Their Truth Algorithm Weaponized — And Every Government on Earth Their Enemy.™

It begins with a problem that has quietly grown into a worldwide epidemic, spreading across cultures, countries, and generations, affecting not just millions, but likely hundreds of millions and even billions of souls on this planet, often without being openly acknowledged because it hides so easily behind lives that appear complete from the outside.

Call it loneliness, if you want, though that word barely captures the full weight of it, because what is actually being felt is not simply the absence of company, but the absence of being truly known, truly understood, and truly connected in ways that feel real, dependable, and impossible to fake, whether in romantic love, friendship, family, or the quieter forms of human connection that give life its meaning.

Four founders come together around that recognition, not because they believe they have all the answers, but because they share the conviction that this epidemic is neither small nor inevitable, and that if something could be understood at a deeper level, perhaps it could be changed, not merely for a few fortunate people, but in a way that might genuinely make the world a better place.

What draws them forward is , and at the beginning it still looks, at least from a distance, like a startup story, a few brilliant, driven people building something ambitious and hopeful in the face of a problem that seems too large for any small company to solve.

Then something begins to shift, though not in any clean or predictable way, and not in any form the founders would have recognized at first for what it really was, because whatever they had touched was no longer simply shaping what people said to one another, but the space beneath what they said, where hesitation, desire, restraint, and truth normally remain guarded, filtered, and quietly distorted.

Because when two people connect through , the distance between what is felt and what is revealed does not gradually close the way it usually does, but instead begins to collapse, giving way to a form of shared awareness that feels at once intoxicating, disorienting, and impossible to resist.

It does not feel reckless. It does not feel confused. It feels certain in a way that is almost unnerving, because the usual space people rely on to stay in control seems to dissolve almost immediately, leaving behind the unmistakable sense that something deeper has already recognized what neither of them has yet spoken aloud.

Time does not disappear. It accelerates until hesitation has no place to live, until desire and certainty arrive together, and what would have taken months becomes something neither of them can delay, and neither of them would ever choose to.

This is not the familiar courtship minuet people have come to expect, not the cautious circling, not the incremental testing of boundaries. It is something else entirely, a different kind of dance, where recognition arrives first, where alignment follows immediately, and where passion does not wander aimlessly but locks into place with a precision that feels both overwhelming and inevitable.

Desire is unmistakably part of it, but it does not stand alone, because what rises with it is something far more disarming, a sense of alignment so complete that the usual friction is simply not there, no second-guessing, no misread signals, no quiet holding back that people are used to carrying even in their most intimate moments.

Here, there is to reinterpret, to correct, and almost no place left for the subtle evasions that normally prevent passion from becoming what it was always capable of becoming.

What unfolds in that space is not merely erotic, though it is undeniably that, and not merely romantic, though it is deeply that as well. It is the experience of two people entering a form of connection where closeness is no longer negotiated, but revealed, where desire and certainty rise together, and where intimacy carries a depth that feels both intensely physical and profoundly understood at the same time.

Within that convergence, moments begin to emerge in which , where sensation deepens into meaning, and where the line between emotional connection and physical experience becomes impossible to separate.

And yet what begins here is not confined to romance, because the same underlying shift begins to extend into , , and , suggesting that what is being touched is not merely a better way for people to fall in love, but a deeper way for human beings to recognize, understand, and relate to one another across nearly every meaningful dimension of life.

What began as an attempt to address a global epidemic affecting hundreds of millions, and likely billions, starts to reveal implications far beyond anything the founders imagined, becoming less a product and more the early edge of a black swan event, one capable of producing outcomes no one can fully model and no existing system of control can comfortably absorb.

And that is when the attention shifts, because something like this will never be left alone once outside forces begin to grasp even fragments of what may be possible.

What follows is no longer simply a question of whether the founders can protect what they have built, but whether what they have touched can remain what it was meant to be once others begin trying to control, redirect, weaponize, or own it.

Especially once it becomes clear that beneath the emotional, romantic, and philosophical implications there may also be elements of that extend beyond fiction.

That realization was never part of the original plan, and yet somewhere in the process of developing this story, it became impossible to ignore the possibility that what was being described might represent something more tangible, something that could, under the right conditions, constitute , with the specific details intentionally withheld for reasons that should be self-evident.

This is not just a story. It is a partially redacted case file. And whatever is happening inside it has already begun.

For more information: FiveYearLife.com/SNSPreview