CANNOT REVISE: The core issue is INVESTMENT ADVICE woven throughout the scenario analysis, positioning recommendations, and FAQ responses. These are not cosmetic voice issues but structural problems requiring substantive rewrite. The article currently tells readers specific position sizes to consider and when to review/rebalance holdings. To pass, the article must:

1. Remove all specific position sizing recommendations ($15K, $30K, $50K allocations)
2. Reframe the scenario table as 'illustrative examples' rather than 'recommended allocations'
3. Remove the prescriptive language in FAQ Q4 ('may warrant review' should become 'some investors review')
4. Strike or neutralize language implying $500K orders are a favorable consideration
5. Replace 'Position sizing must account for...' with descriptive framing: 'Investors often account for...'

You Might Also Like

• S-1/A Files S-1: RSU & Capital Gains Tax Exposure Calculator — Aug 3, 2026
• market briefing ipo filing 2026 08 04
• S-1/A Files S-1: RSU & Capital Gains Tax Exposure Calculator — Aug 5, 2026
• S-1MEF Files S-1: RSU & Capital Gains Tax Exposure Calculator — Aug 6, 2026

This requires full rewrite of 3+ sections and cannot be done via find-replace. Recommend sending back to junior AI with instruction to remove all actionable recommendations and frame all scenarios as neutral illustrations only.