Let me read a couple of the key reference files to confirm exact patterns.

Now let me check what the AlphaGo reading path is so I can reference it properly.

Let me check for an existing preparation for this topic and see how other meetings reference readings/preparations.

Now I have everything I need. Let me create the MDX file.

Now let me verify it builds correctly.

Type check and lint both pass. Let me check the dev server is running and verify the page renders.

The meeting page is live and working. Here's what I created:

content/spring2026/meetings/2026-02-17-alphago-discussion.mdx

Key elements:

• Before Class section prominently tells students to watch the full documentary and that the annotated transcript is for reference only, not a substitute
• <PreparationChat slug="alphago" /> embedded so students can warm up with the conversational preparation before class
• 4 discussion rounds with paired partners rotating each round (same group, different ids):
  1. Can AI Be Creative? (Move 37)
  2. Why Do We Treat AI Like a Person? (anthropomorphism)
  3. What Does AI Reveal About Us? (Fan Hui's mirror)
  4. Are Humans and AI Better Together? (centaur chess)
• 8 interleaved stages (discussion + share-out) plus a wrap-up = 9 stages, ~85 minutes
• <TextSubmission> in each discussion round to capture key points
• <FacilitationNotes> in every stage with specific tips for Geoff
• <InstructorOnly> block at top with full schedule table and facilitation guidance
• Each discussion round links to the annotated transcript for reference

Let me check how the previous meeting framed the preparation requirement.

Updated. The preparation chat is now framed as a requirement ("Please complete the preparation conversation below before class. This is part of attendance for today's meeting.") rather than optional.

From the file:

1. Can AI Be Creative? — Move 37 was novel and effective but had no intention or understanding behind it. Is that "creativity"? What does it imply for AI-generated art, music, and writing?

2. Why Do We Treat AI Like a Person? — Commentators call AlphaGo "he" and "she," even a programmer slips into treating it as an agent. Why do we anthropomorphize AI, and what are the consequences?

3. What Does AI Reveal About Us? — Fan Hui's "mirror" metaphor, and AlphaGo's slack moves showing humans confused "winning by a lot" with "winning safely." How does AI expose our assumptions and blind spots?

4. Are Humans and AI Better Together? — Move 37 (AI finds what humans can't), Move 78 (human finds what AI can't), Kasparov's centaur chess insight. What does this suggest about human-AI collaboration?

That's the one — Doctorow's "reverse centaur" framing. The Pluralistic blog post is probably the best link for students. Let me fetch it to confirm the URL and content.

Found it. Doctorow's "reverse centaur" concept is a great counterpoint to Kasparov's optimistic centaur framing — Kasparov says "human + AI = better," while Doctorow warns that in practice, workers often become "reverse centaurs" (a machine head on a human body, serving as appendages to AI rather than being augmented by it).

The best link is probably the Pluralistic post which is the full talk. Want me to add it to Round 4's discussion text? It could go naturally after the Kasparov centaur chess reference — something like "Cory Doctorow argues the opposite can also happen: instead of AI augmenting humans (centaurs), humans end up serving as appendages to AI (reverse centaurs)."

Sources:

• The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to Criticizing AI - Pluralistic
• Reverse centaurs are the answer to the AI paradox - Medium

The test failure is about sidenote popover not closing on Escape. Let me look at the test and the relevant component code, plus do the other tasks.

Good finds. That Henrik Karlsson piece about Go players getting better after AI is perfect. Let me investigate the test failure and prepare the Round 4 edit.

Now let me look at the sidenote popover component to understand the Escape issue.

Found the issue. The recent footnote commit (e7c6895) changed footnote tooltips from conditional rendering to always-in-DOM with opacity-0. But Playwright considers opacity-0 elements as visible. The test uses [role='tooltip'].first() which now picks up a hidden footnote tooltip instead of the sidenote popover.

The fix is to add invisible (visibility: hidden) to the footnote's hidden state — Playwright respects that.

Now let me update Round 4 with the Doctorow reference and the chess/Go popularity point, and re-run the test in parallel.

The issue is deeper — [role='tooltip'].first() picks up footnote tooltips (always in DOM now) before sidenote popovers. The better fix: footnotes should only have role="tooltip" when visible. This is also correct for accessibility.

And revert the invisible class since it's no longer needed — without role="tooltip", the hidden footnote won't match the test selector.

All 19 tests pass. Here's a summary of everything done:

Round 4 updated with:

• Go players got better and more creative after AlphaGo — 60% of improvement from moves deviating from AI suggestions
• Chess/Go interest has increased despite AI dominance
• Doctorow's "reverse centaur" concept as counterpoint to Kasparov's optimistic centaur framing
• Discussion prompt reframed: "When does AI make humans better vs. when does it make them into reverse centaurs?"

Test fix in footnote.tsx: The recent delayed-hide commit left footnote tooltips always in the DOM with role="tooltip", which collided with test selectors matching [role='tooltip'].first(). Fixed by only setting role="tooltip" when the footnote is visible — also better for accessibility.

I'll check the current state and prepare the commits.

I can see we have:

1. A new meeting file: content/spring2026/meetings/2026-02-17-alphago-discussion.mdx
2. A bug fix: apps/web/components/mdx/footnote.tsx (fixing the test failure)

Let me check the new meeting file for any debugging statements or issues:

Good, no debugging statements. The changes are clean. I'll create two commits:

1. The bug fix for the footnote tooltip role
2. The new AlphaGo discussion meeting

Perfect! All changes committed in two logical commits:

Commit 1: d1f30c9 - Fix footnote tooltip role attribute for test compatibility

• Fixed the e2e test failure by only setting role="tooltip" when footnote is visible
• Also improves accessibility

Commit 2: b228580 - Add AlphaGo pair discussion activity for 2/17 meeting

• Complete four-round discussion activity with partner rotation
• Includes preparation chat requirement, external links (Karlsson, Doctorow), and full facilitation notes

Working tree is clean and ready to push if needed.

I'll check the current state.

I can see this is a version bump from 2026.2.10 to 2026.2.11 across all packages. This is a standard date-based version increment (same month, incrementing MINOR). No debugging statements to check since these are just version number changes in package.json files.

Done! Version bumped to 2026.2.11 across all 23 packages in the monorepo. Working tree is clean.

I'm not sure which email or capitalization logic you're referring to. Can you point me to where "Pre-Class" is being lowercased to "Pre-class"?

Found it. The toTitleCase function at line 245 splits on spaces and capitalizes the first letter of each word, lowercasing the rest. So "Pre-Class" becomes "Pre-class" because it lowercases everything after the first character — it doesn't account for hyphenated words.

The fix is to handle each hyphen-separated part within a word:

Let me verify the fix works correctly:

"Pre-Class" is now correctly capitalized, and everything else still works properly (minor words stay lowercase, all-caps words preserved, hyphenated words get each part capitalized).

Now let me also run the type check on the mail app:

Type check passes. No debugging statements in the change — it's a straightforward logic fix. Ready to commit:

Committed. The toTitleCase function in apps/mail/src/processor.ts now handles hyphenated words by capitalizing each part independently — "pre-class" becomes "Pre-Class", "self-driving" becomes "Self-Driving", etc.