diff --git a/website/blog/2023-01-24-aggregating-test-failures.md b/website/blog/2023-01-24-aggregating-test-failures.md
index 2319da910a6..0c50daf103c 100644
--- a/website/blog/2023-01-24-aggregating-test-failures.md
+++ b/website/blog/2023-01-24-aggregating-test-failures.md
@@ -16,9 +16,9 @@ Testing the quality of data in your warehouse is an important aspect in any matu
 
 <!--truncate-->
 
-At [Tempus](https://www.tempus.com/), a precision medicine company specializing in oncology, high quality data is a necessary component for high quality clinical models. With roughly 1,000 dbt models, nearly a hundred data sources, and a dozen different data quality stakeholders, producing a framework that allows stakeholders to take action on test failures is challenging. Without an actionable framework, data quality tests can backfire — in early 2022, we had nearly a thousand tests, hundreds of which failed on a daily basis yet were wholly ignored. 
+Producing a data quality framework that allows stakeholders to take action on test failures is challenging. Without an actionable framework, data quality tests can backfire — one failing test becomes two becomes ten and suddenly you have too many test failures to act on any of them.
 
-Recently, we overhauled our testing framework. We cut the number of tests down to 200, creating a more mature framework that includes metadata and emphasizes actionability. Our system for managing data quality is a three step process, described below:
+Recently, we overhauled our testing framework. We cut the number of tests down by 80% to create a more mature framework that includes metadata and emphasizes actionability. Our system for managing data quality is a three step process, described below:
 
 1. Leveraging the contextual knowledge of stakeholders, writing specific, high quality data tests, perpetuating test failure results into aliased models for easy access. 
 1. Aggregating test failure results using Jinja macros and pre-configured metadata to pull together high level summary tables. 
@@ -37,15 +37,15 @@ Data Integrity tests (Generic Tests)  are simple — they’re tests akin to a
 ```yaml
 version: 2
 models:
-  - name: patient
+  - name: customer
     columns:
       - name: id
         description: Unique ID associated with the record
         tests:
           - unique:
-              alias: patient__id__unique
+              alias: id__unique
           - not_null:
-              alias: patient__id__not_null
+              alias: id__not_null
 ```
 <center><i>Example Data Integrity Tests in a YAML file — the alias argument is an important piece that will be touched on later.</i></center><br />
 
@@ -53,19 +53,19 @@ Context Driven Tests are more complex and look a lot more like models. Essential
 
 ```sql
 {{ config(
-        tags=['check_birth_date_in_range', 'patient'],
-        alias='ad_hoc__check_birth-date_in_range'
+        tags=['check_purchase_date_in_range', 'customer'],
+        alias='ad_hoc__check_purchase_date_in_range
     )
 }}
 
 SELECT
     id,
-    birth_date
+    purchase_date
 FROM
-    {{ ref('patient') }}
-WHERE birth_date < '1900-01-01'
+    {{ ref('customer') }}
+WHERE purchase_date < '1900-01-01'
 ```
-<center><i>The above test selects all patients with a birth date before 1900, due to data rules we have about maximum patient age.</i></center><br />
+<center><i>The above test selects all customers who have made a purchase before 1900. The idea is that any customer that exists before 1900 probably isn't real.</i></center><br />
 
 Importantly, we leverage [Test Aliasing](https://docs.getdbt.com/reference/resource-configs/alias) to ensure that our tests all follow a standard and predictable naming convention; our naming convention for Data Integrity tests is *table_name_ _column_name__test_name*, and our naming convention for Context Driven Tests is *ad_hoc__test_name*. Finally, to ensure all of our tests can then be aggregated, we modify the `dbt_project.yml` file  and [set the `store_failures` tag to ‘TRUE’](https://docs.getdbt.com/reference/resource-configs/store_failures), thus persisting test failures into SQL tables.
 
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ After defining our metadata Seed file, we begin the process of aggregating our d
        incremental_strategy = 'merge',
        unique_key='row_key',
        full_refresh=false,
-       tags=['dq_test_warning_failures','clinical_mart', 'data_health']
+       tags=['dq_test_warning_failures','customer_mart', 'data_health']
    )
 }}
 
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ WITH failures as (
    SELECT
        count(*) as test_failures,
        _TABLE_SUFFIX as table_suffix,
-   FROM {{ var('clinical_mart_schema') }}_dbt_test__audit.`*`
+   FROM {{ var('customer_mart_schema') }}_dbt_test__audit.`*`
    GROUP BY _TABLE_SUFFIX
 ),
 
@@ -131,4 +131,4 @@ With our finalized data quality base table, there are many other options for cle
 
 First, we create views on top of the base table that filter down by test owner. We strongly believe that test noise is the biggest risk towards the success of a quality framework. Creating specific views is like giving each team a magnifying glass that lets them zoom into only the tests they care about. We also have a dashboard, currently in Google Looker Studio, that shows historical test failures with a suite of filters to let users magnify high severity tests and constructs machine-composed example queries for users to select failing records. When a test fails, a business analyst can copy and paste a query from the dashboard and get all the relevant information.
 
-As with any framework, it’s always a work in progress — we still encounter issues with noise in our tests, and still struggle to wrangle our users to care when a test fails. However, we’ve found that this data framework works exceptionally well at enabling data users to create and deploy their own tests. All they need to do is submit a pull request with SQL code that flags bad data, and write one line of metadata.
\ No newline at end of file
+As with any framework, it’s always a work in progress — we still encounter issues with noise in our tests, and still struggle to wrangle our users to care when a test fails. However, we’ve found that this data framework works exceptionally well at enabling data users to create and deploy their own tests. All they need to do is submit a pull request with SQL code that flags bad data, and write one line of metadata.