Channel: Megaphone Permalink: https://ryevalley.slack.com/archives/C06UJ3V2HEV/p1787419776697519 People: Michael Houck, Venus (VA), Ben (U07561UQ90S) Date: 2026-08-22
What happened
Emil texted Michael directly to flag that a recent proactive engagement posted by Venus was “factually untrue” - specifically the claim that Emil sold with zero investors. Michael instructed Venus to delete it and be more careful with details. Follow-up directive: Venus should ask Ben when she has questions about that type of factual claim.
Constraint (in Michael’s words)
“Emil just texted me saying a recent engagement is ‘factually untrue’ when he says he sold with zero investors. Can you delete and please be careful?”
“If you have questions on that type of stuff just ask [Ben]“
What this means
- Do NOT post engagements on Emil’s behalf that make specific factual claims about his investment history, fundraising status, or exit details without verifying first
- The specific claim “sold with zero investors” is FALSE per Emil himself
- Factual business claims about Emil require verification via Ben before Venus posts
- This constraint came directly from Emil via text to Michael - treat as hard stop
Flag for human review
This is a NEW factual accuracy boundary from the client. Propose adding a note to Emil’s rule-card / account brief that proactive engagement content claiming specifics about his investor/exit history must be pre-cleared. Human gated - do not edit clients/ files from this distiller.