Walk into the trade, pitch or publication knowing the weak points were challenged before the consequences became real. Five AI models examine the same work from different angles, then return one verdict, the highest-impact fixes and a stronger version you can actually use.
A single perspective — yours, or one AI's — carries a single set of blind spots. And most AI tells you what you want to hear, dressing your weak points up as strengths. So the flawed trade gets taken, the pitch ships with the hole, the analysis goes out with the soft section you suspected but couldn't name. Real judgement takes more than one mind. Five leading models — each trained differently, each seeing what the others miss — leave a blind spot nowhere to hide.
First, use this three-question pressure test now. Then convene the Council on one document, on us; the downloadable app runs locally with your own free key.
Imagine a trade plan that says “strong breakout” but never defines acceptance or invalidation. One reviewer challenges the volume evidence, another attacks the entry timing, and another asks what would prove the thesis wrong. The useful result is not more confidence—it is a rewritten plan with an observable trigger, a structural invalidation and a reason to reject the trade.
Your first pressure test and verdict remain yours. Continue only if you want the same challenge → verdict → rewrite process on the decisions that follow.
No. A single model agrees with itself. Five independent models, each trained differently, catch what the others — and you — would miss. The scrutiny is the product.
What can I run through it?Anything you're about to commit to: trade plans, decks, essays, strategy docs, landing pages, contracts you drafted, cold emails. If being wrong costs you money or reputation, run it through the Council first.