A proposal for an innovation can mix established facts, new claims and assumptions in a persuasive account. AI can help produce that account, but an appealing presentation is not evidence for every claim. In one business-plan experiment, evaluators rated AI-generated versions slightly higher than the entrepreneurs’ own; in a separate preprint, prompted rhetorical styles shifted people’s choices in selected AI debates. Neither tested 1Cademy or established an inevitable AI-to-AI persuasion loop. How can people and AI make each claim explicit, learn what is needed to examine it, and identify what remains unsupported?