

Even habryka has misgivings about the Laurenson writeup:
I do think almost all of what it says is literally true and I would recommend reading it to learn things about Leverage if someone is doing their own study and looking for facts, though wouldn’t recommend it for someone who is looking for a reasonable high level summary.
It somehow completely fails to cover Leverage deploying spies into other organizations and trying to take over CEA. It fails to cover the enormous number of straightforward lies told by Leverage staff in that and other contexts.
There is something that feels really weird about the article. As if the central story it is trying to tell is that Leverage fell apart due to no fault of any of its members because they encountered ancient magic or something. Which is a fun story to tell but really doesn’t map what actually happened IMO.
Also multiple people clearly had what I would describe as a psychotic break at Leverage and the casual disparagement of Zoe’s article really doesn’t feel good to me.
Laurenson herself replies and double downs on her no psychotic breaks at Leverage assessment. Her stance on psychotic break diagnosis comes off about as self-serving as SlateScott’s it’s not real autism if I can plausibly be described as having it musings from back in the day.












It’s not fragile and unergonomic, it’s robot-uprising-proof!
Also like will the warranty actually cover damages suffered when trying to squash the rebellion?