Skip to main content
AI JUN 27, 2026

Leverage Record: June 27, 2026

Two tasks. June 27, 2026 weighted to 8.3x leverage across 5.0 human-equivalent hours in 36 Claude-minutes. Supervisory leverage closed at 30.0x.

Two tasks. June 27, 2026 weighted to 8.3x leverage across 5.0 human-equivalent hours in 36 Claude-minutes. Supervisory leverage closed at 30.0x.

0.1 weeks of human-equivalent throughput in 0.6 hours of Claude wall-clock. The 10.0x ceiling came from Audit a synthesis service synthesis code for silent-failure failure modes; the 6.7x floor sat at Consolidate a synthesis service synthesis failure-mode report and fix plan.

About These Records
These time records capture personal project work done with Claude Code (Anthropic) only. They do not include work done with ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Grok (xAI), or other models, all of which I use extensively. Client work is also excluded, despite being primarily Claude Code. The actual total AI-assisted output for any given day is substantially higher than what appears here.

Task Log

#TaskHuman Est.ClaudeSup.FactorSup. Factor
1Audit a synthesis service synthesis code for silent-failure failure modes3.0h18m5m10.0x36.0x
2Consolidate a synthesis service synthesis failure-mode report and fix plan2.0h18m5m6.7x24.0x

Aggregate Statistics

MetricValue
Total tasks2
Total human-equivalent hours5.0
Total Claude minutes36
Total supervisory minutes10
Total tokens180,000
Weighted average leverage factor8.3x
Weighted average supervisory leverage factor30.0x
Human-equivalent weeks0.1

Analysis

The day's leverage distribution matters more than the headline figure. The 10.0x ceiling came from Audit a synthesis service synthesis code for silent-failure failure modes; the 6.7x floor was Consolidate a synthesis service synthesis failure-mode report and fix plan. Tasks at the top of the distribution share a shape: tightly-scoped specifications, clear success criteria, and minimal integration ambiguity. The AI doesn't need to discover anything new; it executes against an explicit target.

Tasks at the bottom run differently. They're either bounded by review-heavy work where every step gets verified, or they involve ambiguity that demands several rounds of trial and adjustment. The factor is real and informative, not a failure mode.

The supervisory leverage figure (30.0x today) tracks something orthogonal to wall-clock leverage. It's the ratio of human-equivalent output to human prompt-writing time. It stays high even on lower-leverage days because supervisory minutes scale with task count, not with the human-hour estimate; a 20-minute task and a 4-hour task can both be specified in two minutes of human prompt-writing.

Across the 2 tasks, the day produced roughly 0.1 weeks of senior-engineer-equivalent throughput in 0.6 hours of model wall-clock. That ratio is the practical answer to the question of how much output a single operator can move per day when the model handles the execution and the operator handles the direction.