@StarEyes The response I got was odd, though I didn't expect it was machine generated. It wasn't in bullet points (which would have been a giveaway), but it was otherwise similar to what you're describing. It started with a basic restatement of the query letter. It proceeded to complain about my use of anaphora without really saying why she thought it was wrong, just describing a literary device I happened to use. She had things to say about individual sentences and the overall trajectory of the story (which of course was in the query) but not on the style of the actual passage under scrutiny. Also, on second examination, it did mangle the protagonist's name a little bit. It was at once highly specific and oddly vague.

I ran it through a few automated checkers with an ambiguous result. Two (QuillBot and Pangram) returned positive results, the others (Originality and Grammarly) returned negative results.

On the other hand, the "How an Agent Reads Your First Page" document she sent along with it had a distinct robotic feel with some definite indicators. I ran it through the same checkers and only one (QuillBot) sent back a positive result, so take that for what you will. I don't think who/what wrote is as important as the terrible reality it reveals about the state of the industry.

Ultimately, there's no way that any of us can confirm or debunk this. I do think that this reliance on an almost industrial formula for "good" fiction points toward a world where a robot could more easily clear that first gate than a human could.

@StarEyes,
Wow, it certainly does sound odd, and I would also be concerned if I received a reply similar to yours. I abhor how AI has infiltrated our industry, and am staunchly opposed to it as well. (Have you seen that author who brags about publishing 60+ AI novels a month? It makes me want to become a semi-violent person. But I digress...)
Anyhow, I went back and looked at my two responses (two separate queries), and they very much seemed to be actually written by Katharine. No bullet points, no synonyms, and deeper questions that seemed completely natural. Her tone in my letters was matter-of-fact, but also seemed warm and personable.
So I'm not saying you're wrong... in fact your points do seem to indicate an AI response. But I hope it's not true, and if it is, I hope it was just a one-time fluke. I would love to hear from others authors, what their take was.

I've never left a comment before, but I think this agent might be using AI to send responses. I got a personalized rejection that gave me some red flags: carefully detailed rephrasing of my query (none of the words I used were restated, but rather their synonyms) that I would suspect would be a strenuous standard for an agent, lists/bullet point format, weird/wrong summarization of my query and pages, a sentence that simply explains/ states my genre and concept, and an overall cold/distant/matter-of-fact tone. I could be wrong, but I thought it was worth mentioning, as I and many others are extremely against AI becoming acceptable in the writing/publishing space. I would hate to make this claim and it be wrong, so I'm also leaving a comment to ask if anyone else experienced this or got that vibe?

Literary Fiction 83K words
Query: 8/30/26
Partial Request: 8/31/26
Chapters Sent:8/31/26