diff --git a/content/log/2024/zig-reproduced-without-binaries.md b/content/log/2024/zig-reproduced-without-binaries.md
index bd2aceb..f13308a 100644
--- a/content/log/2024/zig-reproduced-without-binaries.md
+++ b/content/log/2024/zig-reproduced-without-binaries.md
@@ -118,28 +118,25 @@ checkout, ran it to produce `zig1.wasm` of `0.13.0` myself:
 
 ```
 $ ./pre-inst-env guix build zig@0.13
-;;; note: source file /home/motiejus/code/guix/gnu/packages/zig.scm
-;;;       newer than compiled /home/motiejus/code/guix/gnu/packages/zig.go
-;;; note: source file /home/motiejus/code/guix/gnu/packages/zig.scm
-;;;       newer than compiled /nix/store/gp8nnfibhz63f61cxrnjhm4wb2r9np8h-guix-1.4.0/lib/guile/3.0/site-ccache/gnu/packages/zig.go
+< ... a few hours ... >
 /gnu/store/mz95707dd7qmycpr1f0ndxhkmx3vdy1c-zig-0.13.0
 /gnu/store/kqwq8sjgwi561sp78vfi6xkgm9i3wysk-zig-0.13.0-zig1
-$ ls -lh /gnu/store/kqwq8sjgwi561sp78vfi6xkgm9i3wysk-zig-0.13.0-zig1/bin/zig1.wasm 
--r--r--r-- 5 root root 2.6M Jan  1  1970 /gnu/store/kqwq8sjgwi561sp78vfi6xkgm9i3wysk-zig-0.13.0-zig1/bin/zig1.wasm
+$ ls -l /gnu/store/kqwq8sjgwi561sp78vfi6xkgm9i3wysk-zig-0.13.0-zig1/bin/zig1.wasm 
+-r--r--r-- 5 root root 2661492 Jan  1  1970 /gnu/store/kqwq8sjgwi561sp78vfi6xkgm9i3wysk-zig-0.13.0-zig1/bin/zig1.wasm
 ```
 
 Once I had `zig1.wasm` of 0.13.0, I did the same as I did in the official
 `zig1.wasm`: built `zig3`, used it to build `zig1.wasm`, and voilà, the hashes of
 the official `zig1.wasm` and the one built here match.
 
-# Conclusion
+# Conclusions and open questions
 
 I am looking forward to Hilton landing this to Guix, so anyone can audit the
 build script and reproduce this exercise by themselves with an otherwise
-[bootstrappable][7] system. If you don't trust Guix, whom do you trust?
+[bootstrappable][7] system. If you don't trust Guix, what do you trust?
 
-If anyone can trace origins of `zig1.wasm` and produce an identical version
-themselves, perhaps it's not too bad to have it checked in?
+If anyone can trace origins of `zig1.wasm` by producing an identical version
+themselves, perhaps it's not too bad to trust it and have it checked in?
 
 [^1]: Not exactly. Some reverts and code movement is necessary. See the [`run`
     script][5] for details.