Drop self-contradicting "in minutes" claim from the Neo product page

[workprentice]

Fixes #21567

The "Faster provisioning" card on the Neo product page claimed the deployment happens "in minutes," then immediately cited its own proof point of 3 days to 4 hours — a self-contradiction inside one sentence. "Complex multi-cloud deployments" is also an open-ended outcome whose duration depends entirely on what's being deployed, unlike a bounded first step (a quickstart, a single CLI action), so the "in minutes" framing was unverifiable on its own terms even setting the contradiction aside.

Before:

Automate complex multi-cloud deployments in minutes. Werner Enterprises reduced provisioning time from 3 days to 4 hours.

After:

Automate complex multi-cloud deployments. Werner Enterprises reduced provisioning time from 3 days to 4 hours.

The Werner Enterprises figure is unchanged and matches the same result cited on /blog/ai-infrastructure-tools/ and /what-is/what-is-agentic-infrastructure/, so this is a pure deletion — no new time claim introduced.

Scope note: this same "in minutes" pattern turned up on three other pages during the sweep that also produced #21417/#21418 (the /contact/ fix). Those are tracked on their own cards and deliberately not bundled into this PR, so each can be reviewed independently; they can be consolidated into one PR later if reviewers prefer.

---

🧠 This PR was created by workprentice.

[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:

• Neo product page: the "Faster provisioning" card drops the "in minutes" speed claim, leaving "Automate complex multi-cloud deployments."

The wrongness that would matter here is a marketing speed claim the product can't back — and the card's own next sentence (3 days to 4 hours) contradicted "in minutes," so removing it resolves that. The factual-claim check and the frontmatter sweep both ran; no links, code samples, or sibling pages are involved.

Review confidence:

Dimension	Level	Notes
mechanics	HIGH
facts	HIGH

⚠️ 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: 1 factual claim checked — 1 verified clean.
• Mechanics: frontmatter sweep ran; no internal links added.
• 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 2026-09-12T00:11:14Z · head commit bb72267}

---

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 removes the "in minutes" phrase from one feature card on the Neo product page; the review checked the page's remaining factual claim, its frontmatter, and its links, 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 2026-09-12T00:11:14Z · head commit bb72267}

---

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 bb72267 is ready! 🎉

http://www-testing-pulumi-docs-origin-pr-21569-bb722675.s3-website.us-west-2.amazonaws.com

Changed pages:

• /product/neo/