This is a genuinely important conversation and one that Boost has not yet had to have in a serious way. Rather than treating it as a problem, we should recognize it for what it is: an opportunity. This library may be the first to bring the question of LLM-assisted development to the review process directly, and that makes it valuable regardless of where one stands on the tooling itself. Boost has always led by example. We were early to adopt modern C++ idioms, early to formalize peer review for open source, early to set a standard of quality that the rest of the ecosystem looks to. The world is now grappling with how AI-assisted development fits into serious engineering. Boost can either wait for others to figure that out or we can do what we have always done: lead. The review process already asks the right questions. Is the design sound? Are the abstractions correct? Are the edge cases handled? Does the documentation meet our standard? A coroutine scheduler is either correct or it is not, and the subtle bugs that live in this domain will be surfaced by the quality of the review, not by an accounting of the author's workflow. The review process exists to evaluate artifacts, not to police how authors produce them. If we want to introduce that precedent, it warrants serious thought about where such a principle leads and whose workflows it would scrutinize next. The suggestion to incubate further is always worth considering on technical merits. Every library benefits from real-world usage. That advice stands on its own and does not need to be coupled to how the code was written. Boost has an opportunity here to show the broader C++ community how a serious project evaluates serious work in a changing landscape. We should rise to it.