Helping people share without transferring permission

Summary

After a useful review, a user may ask one matched peer if they want the public sample. If the peer says yes, they get the Warmer Path link and one true sentence — nothing else. The peer starts over and raises their own hand. We have no proof peers will say yes, so live multi-person circles stay blocked.

Key findings

• Who shares: An independent expert-creator who already got real prep value (ideally one keep / change / skip / send review) and cares about craft under their own name — not someone picked only for follower count.
• What they share: The public sample at https://warmersun.com/warmerpath/ plus the sentence: “It prepares the work; I still send under my name.” No demand, contact, or growth promises.
• Ask size: One private ask to one peer. Share only after yes. One link, one sentence, no account required for the recipient.
• Safeguards: Permission does not transfer. No contact sharing, lists, quotas, public tagging without consent, or auto follow-up. Silence or decline ends the loop. Multi-person craft talks wait for a separate human yes.

Recommendations

• Put the exact share sentence on the sample page after a successful review — because peers only gain standing when the description stays true and low-risk.
• Require “ask first, then share,” with a separate hand-raise on the sample — because viewing a link is not consent for messages (same boundary the offer page already states for warm paths).
• Do not start craft circles or live outreach until this path is approved — because carrier, copy, and contact choices still need a human call, and peer response is unproven.
• Open: which peers feel safe to ask first — because no public referral rates exist for this offer.

Evidence reviewed

Findings:
- Warmer Path offer page supports warm paths, human send/post, and no impersonation (https://warmersun.com/warmerpath/).
- Indie Hackers audience-building threads show creators sharing through communities and personal reputation, not cold lists.
- Hacker News automation threads treat unsolicited volume as low-trust compared with human-reviewed work.

Null / blocked:
- No proof that experts will introduce peers after one review; no referral rates or payment evidence.
- Fresh broad web search limited; earlier search limits and Reddit blocks remain.

Still open:
- Will a useful review make someone choose to introduce a peer? — blocking for outcome claims.
- Which invite wording earns an honest peer yes? — informational until live tests.

Godin anchors used

Agent audit only — liaison must not copy this section into decision documents.

• Tribes: shared interest and sideways peer movement without brand broadcast.
• Ideavirus: low-embarrassment share; never buy credibility.

Next step

Review the full trust path and these peer-intro rules with a human before any live invite, contact use, or group activity.