Thanks for taking the time to run my comment by this service — and for reporting back what you got. (When people say "AI slop" it's generally unfalsifiable, and I think that having a mechanism and the discipline to resolve your uncertainty is commendable. Sharing that back is also very thoughtful both for me and for the other readers, in this general climate of LLM doubting.)

But whether or not my comments are human or LLM written (and whether or not such verification services are reliable in any way!):

Do you find my comments useful?

Do I give my reasoning, and do you find it makes sense to you?

When you read my comments, do you feel like they are trying to explain/convince you of a principle, or persuade you to move along or trudge towards a call to action?

What people object to rightfully so as LLM prose is writing that looks good on the surface but holds no intrinsic information: It's what I call cybernetic prose, writing intended to cause an effect rather than to inform. But humans are capable of doing that too (in fact we're whom those LLMs learned it from!).

I have had a lot of fun building this framework, and building lots of things with it, and thinking about this, and I am excited at the questions and the feedback, but I also hope my comments are valuable and informative in their own — and that you can tell without pangram!