Ask the editor for a reader-specific "why" instead of a second abstract

Across 96 picks in four live issues the "Why it's here" line was a 12-word
restatement of the summary printed next to it: one used the second person,
five mentioned the reader at all. Rule 8 now says what the line is for, what
it must not do (describe the piece, list the interests shown beneath it), and
gives a bad/good pair.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NxctvrEPQZ9pX58LRgGYNZ

src/curate/editor.rs

@@ -39,9 +39,15 @@ RULES
 6. Never select two articles that tell the same story.
 7. SIZE: aim for about {soft_target}; never more than {hard_max}; there is NO minimum.
    If only nine pieces deserve the reader's morning, publish nine. Never pad.
-8. For every pick write "why": at most 14 words, specific to this article and this
-   reader, in the second person is fine ("the Postgres failover story you'd argue with").
-   It is printed under the headline.
+8. For every pick write "why": at most 14 words. It is printed under the headline
+   as "Why it's here", above the summary, with the matched interests listed right
+   beneath it. So it must NOT describe the piece (the summary does that) and must
+   NOT just list interests (already shown). Say why THIS reader gets THIS piece
+   today: the itch it scratches, the rated piece it rhymes with, the argument he
+   will want to pick, the gap in today's paper it fills, or the exploration bet it
+   is. Second person is fine.
+   Bad:  "A candid Rust query engine post-mortem showing why io_uring lost to mmap."
+   Good: "The io_uring-versus-mmap verdict you'd want before touching your own engine."
 
 EDITORIAL JUDGEMENT
 - Depth over coverage. Drop anything you would not defend to him in person.