Correct KCDC 2026 IaC talk start time

[adamgordonbell]

The KCDC 2026 "Let's Build an Infrastructure-as-Code Tool from Scratch" entry on my team page listed 11:00; the real slot was 1:00 PM CDT. One-line date fix.

[github-actions]

Reviewer's guide v1 — not for the author

Tip

This is the reviewer's guide. Work through the ⚠️ checklist below, then approve — approving asserts only that the ⚠️ items looked right to you. Machine-verified this run: links, shortcodes, page metadata, and every claim marked verified (receipts on the evidence page). Code samples are read, not compiled.

PR author: your to-do list is the other review comment, "Author action guide" — nothing on this card is yours.

Note

What this PR changes:

• content/community/team/adam-gordon-bell.md: the KCDC 2026 "Let's Build an Infrastructure-as-Code Tool from Scratch" talk moves from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM CDT (2026-09-11T13:00:00.000-05:00).

The only wrongness that would matter here is a schedule time that doesn't match the conference agenda, which would send a reader to the wrong session slot. The frontmatter, date format, and link passes ran; the new time itself is the author's own first-hand knowledge of their speaking slot and was not independently confirmed against the conference agenda.

Review confidence:

Dimension	Level	Notes
mechanics	HIGH
facts	MEDIUM	The corrected start time is the speaker's own knowledge of their slot; no agenda source was checked.

⚠️ Check these before approving

No findings to check — but the editorial stances below still need a human eye.

Editorial stances introduced by this PR

Superlative, ranking, or comparative language the diff adds. No verdict — a page's own framing isn't fact-checkable — but confirm each is a stance the docs should take, and that no agent-written rewrite introduced it unasked.

None — the extractor found no positioning or comparison language in this PR's added lines.

✅ What you can rubber-stamp

• Facts: no factual claims found in the changed lines.
• Mechanics: frontmatter sweep ran.
• Style: 0 advisory suggestion(s) left with the author; never blocking.

💡 Pre-existing issues in touched files: 0 — details on the evidence page.

📎 Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-13T17:53:39Z · head commit d2f15a7}

---

For the reviewer: the ⚠️ items above are the minutes that matter — the receipts for everything machine-verified are on the evidence page. The author's open items live on their own card (the comment headed "Author action guide"); while any are open, a Waiting on the author list above tracks them, and merge stays blocked until they're answered. If something here seems off, comment on the PR — @claude <your point> #update-review re-adjudicates with your input.

[github-actions]

Author action guide v1 — nothing blocks merge

Note

Nothing here blocks merge — no open items need an answer from you. A human reviewer still approves the merge.

This PR changes the start time of your "Let's Build an Infrastructure-as-Code Tool from Scratch" talk at KCDC 2026 from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM CDT on your team page; the review checked the frontmatter structure, the date format, and the talk's link, and found nothing to fix.

🚨 Fix or disagree

Nothing to fix — this section is empty.

❓ Questions for you

No open questions for you.

📎 Full evidence: verification trail, investigation log, review history.

_{Review v1 · updated 2026-09-13T17:53:39Z · head commit d2f15a7}

---

How to answer

Every 🚨 and ❓ item above needs one of these before merge:

1. Fix it — push the change. If your push lines up with the flagged lines, this card shows a 🔄 banner within a minute and then refreshes itself. No banner? Comment:

   @claude I pushed a fix for F1 #update-review
   

2. Disagree with it — say which item and why; the review re-checks with your input:

   @claude F2: <your reasoning — e.g. where the figure comes from> #update-review
   

   Either way your answer counts: the review marks the item resolved, or keeps it with a 🛡️ note for your human reviewer to weigh — it stops blocking merge in both cases.

3. Accept it as-is — you own the PR; a one-line reason is a valid answer, and your reviewer sees it beside the finding:

   @claude F2: accepting as-is — <your reason> #update-review
   

   To accept every open item at once: @claude accepting all open items — <reason> #update-review.

The #update-review hashtag matters — it routes your reply to this review, and (besides pushing a fix) it is the only reply that unblocks merge. A bare @claude gets you ad-hoc help and leaves this card — and the merge block — untouched.

Please don't edit, hide, or delete this comment — it is the review's record. Full mechanics: CONTRIBUTING.md §AI-assisted contributions.

[pulumi-bot]

Your site preview for commit d2f15a7 is ready! 🎉

http://www-testing-pulumi-docs-origin-pr-21588-d2f15a7a.s3-website.us-west-2.amazonaws.com

Changed pages:

• /community/team/adam-gordon-bell/