2 main scenarios

Scenario 1 — Member (open link → explore → comment → join)

1. Core value proposition is undiscoverable
Seed's key differentiators — referencing, commenting, author control — are all interaction-triggered. New users stay in read-only mode and never take the action that would reveal them.

2. Content reads as passive, not interactive
Nothing in the visual design signals that content can be acted on. It looks like an article, so users treat it like one.

3. Onboarding guidance vs. clean reading experience
Onboarding cues risk cluttering the reading experience; a clean page risks leaving users lost. This needs a deliberate solution (e.g. progressive disclosure, dismissible first-use hints) — not a tradeoff resolved by picking one side.

4. Passkey-only auth is a hard blocker
Every demo user failed to complete account creation. Two distinct causes:

Some distrust device-bound credentials

Others don't have the mental model for passkeys at all
Expect email + code only or Password as a parallel option, not a fallback.

5. Homepage lacks orientation
The homepage prioritizes navigability over context. First-time users need a brief intro and visible content structure to understand what the site is before they're asked to navigate it.

6. Is this a site builder?

Scenario 2 — Editor (onboard → create site → create document → publish)

Maps to: the "build your own living space" side — creator/owner experience

Usability: is onboarding clear, and does create site → create document → publish match their mental model (terminology, where things live, what "site" means)

PMF: does this fit how they currently organize their work/knowledge

PMF: what's missing compared to their current or desire tool

PMF: would they bring their current team/collaborators into this — and what would stop them

*We need to work on create site flow to be able to do this demo