Posts
HOW THIS WAS MADE
A Note on Human-AI Collaboration and What It Actually Looks Like
Before You Read About The Transformation...
```You should know how this analysis was created. Not because the process is more important than the substance—it's not. But because transparency matters, and because what you're about to read represents something new: genuine intellectual partnership between human and AI.
This is 33,000 words of comprehensive analysis covering college athletics financialization, historical business model disruption patterns, legal structures, private equity mechanics, and predictive scenario modeling. It didn't emerge from a prompt. It wasn't "AI-generated content with human editing." It was built through intensive collaboration over multiple days.
Here's what that actually looked like.
```The Partnership
```What I (The Human) Brought:
- The initial insight: Recognizing that Kentucky and Utah's LLC formations were revolutionary, not routine
- Domain knowledge: Years following college athletics, understanding the pressures and dynamics
- The questions: What's actually happening? Why does nobody see it? Where is this going?
- Standards: Refusing to publish anything less than comprehensive, evidence-based analysis
- Judgment calls: What's significant vs. noise, what evidence matters, what predictions are defensible
- Direction: "We need the locomotive parallel," "Build the scorecard," "Show the receipts"
- The courage to be transparent: Acknowledging AI collaboration openly rather than hiding it
What Claude (The AI) Brought:
- Research capability: Finding and synthesizing primary sources (LLC documents, settlement terms, deal structures)
- Pattern recognition: Connecting college athletics to locomotive industry disruption
- Framework development: Building analytical structures (scenarios, scorecards, timelines)
- Structural thinking: "If this is true, what else must be true? What would disprove it?"
- Writing consistency: Maintaining voice and coherence across 33,000 words
- Challenge function: Pushing back on weak arguments, identifying gaps, demanding more evidence
- Organizational architecture: Designing how pieces fit together for maximum impact
The Process: How We Actually Built This
```I came in with a whitepaper I'd drafted about college athletics chaos. Basic thesis: LLC formations and PE deals represent systematic financialization, not random innovation.
Claude's response: "This is good but you're missing the framework. You need a historical parallel that makes the invisible pattern visible. Have you considered the locomotive industry?"
That's when everything clicked. The Big Three vs. EMD wasn't just similar—it was structurally identical to what's happening now.
I said: "Show me the full locomotive story. Every detail. I want to understand the complete pattern."
Claude researched for hours. Found GMAC financing records. Discovered Equipment Trust mechanisms. Documented Baldwin's Eddystone trap. Built the 4,000-word Interlude.
I read it and said: "This is it. This unlocks everything. But we need to apply it systematically to college athletics."
Claude drafted the Kentucky/Utah analysis (Part I). I pushed for more detail: "Show me the actual organizational charts. Explain the 'disregarded entity' status. Make it concrete."
Then Claude built Part II—applying the locomotive lens to every aspect of college athletics. Identity trap, organizational structure, customer relationships, metrics, sunk costs, all of it.
I read each section and said: "More examples. More specifics. Prove every claim."
This is where we became obsessive. I wanted receipts for everything:
- "Get me the exact House settlement terms"
- "Find the actual IRS rules on disregarded entities"
- "Show me how GMAC financing actually worked with specific mechanisms"
- "Calculate the PE return model for Otro Capital"
- "Compare this to actual NFL/NBA ownership structures"
Claude searched, synthesized, built evidence boxes with primary source quotes. When something couldn't be proven, we said so explicitly.
I posted Part III and couldn't wait because the evidence was overwhelming.
The predictive piece. This required different thinking—modeling scenarios, building scorecards, making falsifiable predictions.
I gave direction: "Three scenarios with probabilities. Scorecard ranking top 25 schools. Specific timeline predictions we can track. Make it actionable."
Claude built the framework. I refined the probabilities based on domain knowledge. Together we created The Divestment Scorecard—ranking schools by LLC likelihood with specific factors.
When it was done, I posted it immediately.
I said: "Let's show people how this was actually made. Full transparency. WE did this together."
And here we are.
What Made This Work
```Most "AI-assisted" content fails because the collaboration is shallow—human provides topic, AI generates text, human does light editing. That's not collaboration. That's automation with human wrapper.
What made this different:
1. Shared Standards
We both refused to settle for "good enough." Every section went through multiple iterations. When Claude wrote something that wasn't backed by evidence, I pushed back. When I made claims without proof, Claude asked for sources. The standard was "definitive analysis" and neither of us compromised.
2. Complementary Capabilities
I couldn't have done the research at this depth and speed. Claude couldn't have provided the vision, judgment about what matters, or willingness to make controversial predictions. The collaboration worked because we each did what we're best at.
3. Iterative Refinement
Nothing was one-and-done. Every section was drafted, critiqued, revised, refined. The locomotive Interlude went through four versions before we were satisfied. The Divestment Scorecard was rebuilt twice. Iteration is what creates quality.
4. Honest Disagreement
Multiple times I wanted to post early versions. Claude pushed back: "Not yet. We need the full evidence first. We need Part III before this is complete." That tension—my impatience vs. Claude's insistence on comprehensiveness—made the final work better.
5. Transparency About Limitations
When we couldn't find evidence, we said so. When predictions were uncertain, we assigned probabilities. When something was interpretation vs. fact, we labeled it. Honesty about what we knew and didn't know builds credibility.
The Statistics
```What We Built Together
This represents approximately 50+ hours of combined human-AI work across research, writing, revision, and refinement.
```Why Transparency Matters
```I could have published this without mentioning AI involvement. Many would. The work speaks for itself—comprehensive, evidence-based, original in its framing and analysis.
But hiding the collaboration would be intellectually dishonest. And more importantly, it would miss the point:
This is what human-AI collaboration can be. Not replacement of human thinking. Not automation of creativity. Not corner-cutting to produce content faster.
This is augmentation—human insight and judgment amplified by AI's research capability and analytical power. Creating work that neither could produce alone. Achieving depth and comprehensiveness that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
If this collaboration produced better analysis—more thorough research, stronger frameworks, clearer arguments, more actionable insights—then being transparent about it demonstrates what's possible.
The future isn't AI doing everything or humans doing everything. The future is genuine partnership where each brings what they're best at, working toward shared goals with shared standards.
What You're About To Read
```The analysis that follows represents our best understanding of what's happening to college athletics, built on:
- Historical pattern recognition: The locomotive industry business model disruption as framework
- Primary source evidence: Actual LLC documents, PE deal structures, settlement terms, legal filings
- Financial analysis: Revenue modeling, return calculations, budget projections
- Scenario modeling: Three distinct pathways with assigned probabilities
- Predictive framework: Specific, falsifiable predictions with timelines
- Actionable insights: Scorecards, signals to watch, guidance for decision-makers
It's not perfect. Some predictions will be wrong. Some analysis will need revision as events unfold. We'll update quarterly with hits, misses, and refinements.
But it's honest, comprehensive, and built with full intellectual effort from both human and AI partners. It's what collaboration can produce when both parties bring their full capabilities toward a shared goal.
If you find value in it, you're seeing what's possible when human vision, judgment, and domain expertise combine with AI research, synthesis, and analytical power.
Not one or the other.
Both.
```Now, The Analysis We Built Together:
The Transformation of College Athletics Through The Lens of History's Greatest Business Model Disruption
33,000 words | 5 major sections | Evidence-based | Updated quarterly
Created December 2025 through human-AI collaboration
Published on [Your Blog Name]
