Line-by-Line Critique of CIRR Standard Document. Opinion: good intentioned organization but spec is not rigorous and robust and I point out all of the problems that make it one of the weaker specifications I've read in my opinion.

1. I've explained numerous times why Formation doesn't publish CIRR or similar outcomes and that we aren't a coding bootcamp. Since you seem to know Formation better than I do, explain to me what "graduation" means at Formation? This is the core principal of all bootcamp outcome standards that I can't figure out what that means for us. If you can't explain "graduation" accurately then just back off and stop spreading nonsense about us. If you can thoughtfully read the specs and propose what it means for us, then we can talk keep talking about it productively about why I agree or not. 2. We advertise all over Reddit and we re-target people who visit our website. Drawing false conclusions is not fact. Raw data is fact. So asking "Why do I see ads for Formation in this sub?" and getting a completely open and transparent answer is exactly what I'm talking about being open and transparent. Making assumptions that are factually wrong is not that. 3. I have just one account on here that I actively use (not including Formation's shared advertising account labelled as "Formation"). I had another account for following people who blocked me to see if they were continuing to attack me without me being able to see, that never commented, posted or voted, but I haven't used that in 1+ years because almost all of those people has been permanently suspended from Reddit at this point of their own doing. 4. I 100% agree the GRAD standard has a lot of issues! I was talking about the quality of the writing of the document. It's written like a specification that lawyers looked at and improved and was making a point that CIRRs standard doesn't look like a single lawyer every read it and is full of logical issues that I pointed out.