1118 lines
67 KiB
HTML
1118 lines
67 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|
<html lang="en">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta charset="UTF-8">
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
|
|
<title>VerdictTank v5.0 · Error Detection Density for Proposals</title>
|
|
<style>
|
|
:root{
|
|
--bg:#0b0e14;--panel:#131824;--panel2:#1a2030;--ink:#e6edf3;--muted:#8b97a8;
|
|
--line:#232b3a;--accent:#4da3ff;--accent2:#7ee787;--warn:#f0a45c;--bad:#ff6b6b;
|
|
--code:#0d1117;--codeink:#c9d1d9;--pass:#2ea043;--below:#d29922;
|
|
}
|
|
*{box-sizing:border-box}
|
|
html{scroll-behavior:smooth}
|
|
body{margin:0;background:var(--bg);color:var(--ink);
|
|
font:15px/1.65 -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif}
|
|
.wrap{max-width:1180px;margin:0 auto;padding:0 24px}
|
|
header.hero{background:linear-gradient(135deg,#0b0e14,#131824 60%,#0f1a2e);
|
|
border-bottom:1px solid var(--line);padding:48px 0 36px}
|
|
.badge{display:inline-block;font-size:12px;letter-spacing:.14em;text-transform:uppercase;
|
|
color:var(--accent);border:1px solid var(--accent);border-radius:999px;padding:4px 12px;margin-bottom:16px}
|
|
.badge--warn{color:var(--warn);border-color:var(--warn)}
|
|
h1{font-size:34px;margin:6px 0 8px;letter-spacing:-.5px}
|
|
.sub{color:var(--muted);font-size:16px;max-width:760px}
|
|
.meta{margin-top:18px;display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:10px}
|
|
.meta span{font-size:12px;background:var(--panel2);border:1px solid var(--line);
|
|
border-radius:6px;padding:5px 10px;color:var(--muted)}
|
|
.meta b{color:var(--ink)}
|
|
nav.toc{position:sticky;top:0;z-index:20;background:rgba(11,14,20,.92);
|
|
backdrop-filter:blur(8px);border-bottom:1px solid var(--line);padding:10px 0}
|
|
nav.toc ol{list-style:none;margin:0;padding:0;display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;gap:6px;font-size:12.5px}
|
|
nav.toc a{color:var(--muted);text-decoration:none;padding:4px 9px;border-radius:6px;border:1px solid transparent}
|
|
nav.toc a:hover{color:var(--ink);border-color:var(--line);background:var(--panel)}
|
|
section{padding:40px 0;border-bottom:1px solid var(--line)}
|
|
h2{font-size:24px;margin:0 0 6px;letter-spacing:-.3px}
|
|
h2 .n{color:var(--accent);font-variant-numeric:tabular-nums;margin-right:10px}
|
|
h3{font-size:17px;margin:26px 0 8px;color:var(--accent2)}
|
|
h4{font-size:14px;margin:18px 0 6px;color:var(--warn);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em}
|
|
p{margin:10px 0}
|
|
.lead{color:var(--muted);font-size:15.5px;margin-bottom:8px}
|
|
ul,ol{margin:10px 0;padding-left:22px}
|
|
li{margin:5px 0}
|
|
code{background:var(--code);color:var(--codeink);padding:2px 6px;border-radius:4px;
|
|
font:13px/1.5 "SF Mono",ui-monospace,Menlo,Consolas,monospace}
|
|
pre{background:var(--code);color:var(--codeink);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;
|
|
padding:16px;overflow:auto;font:12.5px/1.55 "SF Mono",ui-monospace,Menlo,Consolas,monospace;margin:14px 0}
|
|
pre.ascii{line-height:1.35;font-size:12px;color:#9fb3c8}
|
|
table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin:14px 0;font-size:13.5px}
|
|
th,td{border:1px solid var(--line);padding:8px 10px;text-align:left;vertical-align:top}
|
|
th{background:var(--panel2);color:var(--ink);font-weight:600}
|
|
td{background:var(--panel);color:var(--ink)}
|
|
|
|
/* Custom blocks */
|
|
.evolution-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:20px;margin:24px 0}
|
|
.evolution-card{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:20px}
|
|
.evolution-card--current{border-color:var(--accent);background:var(--panel2)}
|
|
.version-badge{font-size:11px;letter-spacing:.1em;text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--warn);margin-bottom:8px}
|
|
.version-badge--current{color:var(--accent)}
|
|
.breakthrough-label{font-size:12px;color:var(--accent2);font-weight:600;margin-bottom:6px}
|
|
.callout{background:var(--panel2);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:16px 20px;margin:20px 0}
|
|
.callout--proof{border-left:4px solid var(--accent)}
|
|
.callout--fail{border-left:4px solid var(--bad)}
|
|
.callout--win{border-left:4px solid var(--accent2)}
|
|
.defense-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:18px;margin:20px 0}
|
|
.defense-item{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:16px}
|
|
.positioning-statement{font-size:16px;color:var(--accent2);text-align:center;margin:28px 0;padding:16px;background:var(--panel2);border:1px solid var(--accent);border-radius:10px}
|
|
.comp-table__us td{background:#0f1a2e;color:var(--accent);font-weight:600}
|
|
.muted{color:var(--muted);font-size:12px}
|
|
.table-note{font-size:12px;color:var(--muted);margin:4px 0 14px}
|
|
.strategy-cols{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:20px;margin:16px 0}
|
|
.strategy-cols h4{text-transform:none;color:var(--accent);font-size:14px}
|
|
.pricing-grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr 1fr;gap:16px;margin:20px 0}
|
|
.price-card{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:20px;text-align:center}
|
|
.price-card--featured{border-color:var(--accent);background:var(--panel2);position:relative}
|
|
.ribbon{position:absolute;top:-10px;left:50%;transform:translateX(-50%);
|
|
background:var(--accent);color:#0b0e14;font-size:11px;font-weight:700;
|
|
padding:3px 12px;border-radius:999px;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em}
|
|
.price{font-size:36px;font-weight:700;margin:8px 0}
|
|
.price span{font-size:16px;color:var(--muted);font-weight:400}
|
|
.price-card ul{list-style:none;padding:0;text-align:left;margin:12px 0}
|
|
.price-card li{margin:6px 0;font-size:13px}
|
|
.price-card li::before{content:"✓ ";color:var(--accent2);font-weight:700}
|
|
.price-purpose{font-size:11px;color:var(--muted);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.04em;margin-top:12px}
|
|
.walkthrough{display:grid;gap:16px;margin:16px 0}
|
|
.wt-input{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:16px}
|
|
.wt-proposal-text{font-style:italic;color:var(--muted);border-left:3px solid var(--warn);padding-left:14px;margin:10px 0}
|
|
.wt-context{font-size:12px;color:var(--muted);margin-top:8px}
|
|
.wt-scores{display:grid;grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr;gap:14px}
|
|
.score-block{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:16px}
|
|
.score-block--narrative{border-left:4px solid var(--accent)}
|
|
.score-block--compliance{border-left:4px solid var(--warn)}
|
|
.score-label{font-size:12px;color:var(--muted);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em}
|
|
.score-value{font-size:40px;font-weight:700;margin:4px 0}
|
|
.score-value span{font-size:16px;color:var(--muted);font-weight:400}
|
|
.score-block--narrative .score-value{color:var(--accent)}
|
|
.score-block--compliance .score-value{color:var(--bad)}
|
|
.fixit-list li{margin:12px 0;padding:0}
|
|
.fixit-head{display:flex;align-items:center;gap:10px;margin-bottom:4px}
|
|
.fixit-tag{font-size:11px;font-weight:700;padding:2px 8px;border-radius:4px;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.05em}
|
|
.fixit-tag--critical{background:rgba(255,107,107,.15);color:var(--bad);border:1px solid rgba(255,107,107,.3)}
|
|
.fixit-tag--high{background:rgba(240,164,92,.15);color:var(--warn);border:1px solid rgba(240,164,92,.3)}
|
|
.fixit-tag--medium{background:rgba(77,163,255,.15);color:var(--accent);border:1px solid rgba(77,163,255,.3)}
|
|
.fixit-delta{font-size:12px;color:var(--accent2);font-weight:600}
|
|
.timeline{margin:20px 0}
|
|
.timeline-phase{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:14px 18px;margin:8px 0}
|
|
.timeline-phase--risk{border-color:var(--warn);background:var(--panel2)}
|
|
.tl-weeks{font-size:11px;color:var(--accent);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em;margin-bottom:4px}
|
|
.tag{font-size:11px;font-weight:700;padding:2px 8px;border-radius:4px;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.05em}
|
|
.tag-green{background:rgba(46,160,67,.15);color:var(--pass);border:1px solid rgba(46,160,67,.3)}
|
|
.tag-amber{background:rgba(210,153,34,.15);color:var(--below);border:1px solid rgba(210,153,34,.3)}
|
|
.tag-red{background:rgba(255,107,107,.15);color:var(--bad);border:1px solid rgba(255,107,107,.3)}
|
|
.highlight{background:var(--panel2);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:14px 18px;margin:16px 0}
|
|
.arch-box{background:var(--code);color:var(--codeink);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:8px;
|
|
padding:14px 16px;margin:12px 0;font:12.5px/1.5 "SF Mono",ui-monospace,Menlo,Consolas,monospace}
|
|
.statgrid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(4,1fr);gap:14px;margin:22px 0}
|
|
.stat{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:10px;padding:16px;text-align:center}
|
|
.stat--hero{border-color:var(--accent2);background:var(--panel2)}
|
|
.stat .v{font-size:32px;font-weight:700;color:var(--accent);line-height:1.1}
|
|
.stat--hero .v{color:var(--accent2)}
|
|
.stat--bad .v{color:var(--bad)}
|
|
.stat .k{font-size:11px;color:var(--muted);text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:.06em;margin-top:6px}
|
|
.errgrid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(3,1fr);gap:14px;margin:18px 0}
|
|
.errcard{background:var(--panel);border:1px solid var(--line);border-left:4px solid var(--bad);border-radius:10px;padding:14px 16px}
|
|
.errcard .n{font-size:26px;font-weight:700;color:var(--bad)}
|
|
.errcard .t{font-size:13px;font-weight:600;margin:4px 0}
|
|
.errcard .d{font-size:12.5px;color:var(--muted)}
|
|
footer{text-align:center;padding:40px 0 30px;border-top:1px solid var(--line);margin-top:40px;
|
|
font-size:12px;color:var(--muted);line-height:1.8}
|
|
footer a{color:var(--accent)}
|
|
a{color:var(--accent)}
|
|
|
|
@media (max-width:768px){
|
|
.evolution-grid,.defense-grid,.strategy-cols,.pricing-grid,.wt-scores{grid-template-columns:1fr}
|
|
.statgrid,.errgrid{grid-template-columns:1fr 1fr}
|
|
h1{font-size:28px}
|
|
.price{font-size:28px}
|
|
.score-value{font-size:30px}
|
|
}
|
|
</style>
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<main class="wrap">
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== HERO ====== -->
|
|
<header class="hero" style="text-align:center;padding:80px 0 60px">
|
|
<div class="badge">v5.0 · Pre-Revenue · Validation-Tested</div>
|
|
<h1 style="font-size:44px;letter-spacing:-1px">14 blind errors your solo model missed</h1>
|
|
<p class="sub" style="font-size:20px;max-width:840px;margin:0 auto">
|
|
A solo frontier model gives you a smooth, confident score. An 11-judge panel gives you the
|
|
14 things it was wrong about. VerdictTank does not sell you a higher number. It sells you
|
|
the errors that number was hiding.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<div class="meta" style="justify-content:center;margin-top:24px">
|
|
<span><b>Category:</b> AI Proposal Review & Error Detection</span>
|
|
<span><b>Panel:</b> 11 seats · 9 vendors</span>
|
|
<span><b>Architecture:</b> <a href="architecture.html">Full technical document</a></span>
|
|
<span><b>Judge pool:</b> <a href="judge-pool-spec.md">Spec v2.3</a></span>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</header>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== NAVIGATION ====== -->
|
|
<nav class="toc">
|
|
<div class="wrap">
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><a href="#thesis">1. The Thesis</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#pipeline">2. Pipeline Story</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#validation">3. Validation Data</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#errors">4. The 14 Errors</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#panel">5. Judge Pool v2.3</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#worked">6. Worked Example</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#pricing">7. Pricing</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#competitive">8. Competitive Landscape</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#deployment">9. Deployment</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="#legal">10. Legal & Compliance</a></li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</nav>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 1. THESIS ====== -->
|
|
<section id="thesis">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">01</span>The Thesis Changed, Because the Data Said So</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
VerdictTank v4.0 was sold on a claim we could not defend: that a multimodel panel produces a
|
|
better score than a single strong model. On 2026-08-12 we ran that claim against real proposals
|
|
and it failed. What we found instead is a stronger product.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="statgrid">
|
|
<div class="stat stat--hero"><div class="v">14</div><div class="k">Material errors caught</div></div>
|
|
<div class="stat stat--bad"><div class="v">-0.40</div><div class="k">Aggregate score delta</div></div>
|
|
<div class="stat"><div class="v">3</div><div class="k">Real proposals scored</div></div>
|
|
<div class="stat"><div class="v">11</div><div class="k">Judge seats, 9 vendors</div></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="callout callout--fail">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">What failed</h4>
|
|
<p style="margin-bottom:0">
|
|
The score-elevation thesis. Across three real proposals the panel mean came in
|
|
<strong>0.40 points below</strong> the solo baseline. The panel did not lift scores. On two
|
|
of three proposals it pushed them down. We are publishing that result rather than burying it,
|
|
because the reason it happened is the product.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="callout callout--win">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">What worked</h4>
|
|
<p style="margin-bottom:0">
|
|
Error detection density. The same panel run surfaced <strong>14 material errors</strong> that
|
|
the solo baseline missed or underweighted: revenue arithmetic that was wrong by a factor of
|
|
seven, a funded direct competitor the solo pass never named, a launch-blocking compliance
|
|
cost larger than projected first-year revenue. None of those show up as a score. All of them
|
|
decide whether the proposal wins.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="positioning-statement">
|
|
You do not buy VerdictTank to get a higher score.<br>
|
|
You buy it to find the $60K compliance hole and the broken contractor budget before you ship.
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Why the spread is the signal</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
A single model scoring alone produces low variance. It reads the document once, forms one
|
|
coherent opinion, and every dimension it emits is downstream of that opinion. The result feels
|
|
authoritative precisely because nothing inside it disagrees.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
An 11-seat panel of nine different vendors cannot produce that coherence, and the incoherence
|
|
is diagnostic. When a Financial Integrity judge scores a proposal 8.2 while an
|
|
Execution Feasibility judge scores the same document 2.8, that 5.4-point spread is not noise.
|
|
It is a precise statement: <em>the money works, the delivery plan does not</em>. A solo model
|
|
averages that tension away into a single confident 6.1 and tells you nothing actionable.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<div class="highlight">
|
|
<strong>Measured, not asserted:</strong> on every one of the three validated proposals, panel
|
|
spread exceeded solo spread. RFP Tank 3.7 vs 1.4. VentureBuilt 5.4 vs 2.4. CartMySupply
|
|
2.6 vs 1.8. Widening variance is the intended behavior, not a defect to tune out.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 2. PIPELINE STORY ====== -->
|
|
<section id="pipeline">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">02</span>How We Found This: Four Generations and a Self-Review</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
VerdictTank is a proposal review engine, not a proposal writer. It ingests a finished document
|
|
and returns scored dimensions plus a ranked list of concrete Fix-It items. The pipeline was not
|
|
designed in the abstract. It was hardened across four architectural generations, and then it
|
|
was pointed at its own proposals.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="evolution-grid">
|
|
<div class="evolution-card">
|
|
<div class="version-badge">v2</div>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Single-Model Scorer</h3>
|
|
<div class="breakthrough-label">Breakthrough: the dual-axis rubric</div>
|
|
<p>
|
|
v2 established the core insight: a proposal has two independent quality axes. Narrative
|
|
quality (clarity, structure, persuasion) and compliance quality (does it actually answer
|
|
the scored requirements). One model scored both from one prompt. It proved the concept and
|
|
exposed the flaw: the axes bled together. A beautifully written section that missed a
|
|
mandatory requirement scored too high, because the same reasoning pass that admired the
|
|
prose also graded the compliance.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="evolution-card">
|
|
<div class="version-badge">v3</div>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Separated Scoring Passes</h3>
|
|
<div class="breakthrough-label">Breakthrough: axis isolation</div>
|
|
<p>
|
|
v3 split scoring into two independent passes with two purpose-built prompts. The narrative
|
|
pass never sees the compliance rubric. The compliance pass never rewards eloquence. This is
|
|
the decision that makes the dual score trustworthy: the two numbers can now disagree, and
|
|
their disagreement carries information. A 9/10 narrative next to a 4/10 compliance is a
|
|
proposal about to lose.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="evolution-card">
|
|
<div class="version-badge">v4</div>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Multimodel Adversarial Review</h3>
|
|
<div class="breakthrough-label">Breakthrough: cross-model verification</div>
|
|
<p>
|
|
A single model scoring in isolation is confidently wrong at a predictable rate. v4
|
|
introduced a multimodel pipeline: a fast model produces first-pass scores and Fix-It
|
|
candidates, then a stronger model reviews that output adversarially, challenging every
|
|
deduction and confirming each Fix-It maps to real proposal text. Scores stopped drifting
|
|
between runs. This is the generation that made the output defensible.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="evolution-card evolution-card--current">
|
|
<div class="version-badge version-badge--current">v5 · Current</div>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Specialist Panel and the Integrity Gate</h3>
|
|
<div class="breakthrough-label">Breakthrough: disagreement as output</div>
|
|
<p>
|
|
v5 replaces the adversarial pair with an 11-seat specialist panel across nine vendors, and
|
|
adds a synthesis seat whose only job is to compute panel statistics, flag scores more than
|
|
1.5 standard deviations from the mean, and reconcile the verdict against the evidence.
|
|
The output is no longer a number. It is a number, a spread, an outlier list, and a ranked
|
|
set of material errors with the judge that caught each one.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>The self-review that broke the old thesis</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Before selling a review engine we ran the engine on our own work. We assembled the panel and
|
|
scored three real proposals, in full, with the same prompts and rubric a paying customer would
|
|
get. One of the three was VerdictTank's own sibling product. The panel returned a NO GO on it.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
That run cost roughly $150 in inference and returned 8 of 11 seats. Two seats were lost to a
|
|
provider credit wall hit mid-run and one to a model family that could not be dispatched at all.
|
|
The incomplete panel is why v2.3 of the judge pool spec now requires a pre-flight health gate
|
|
and a pre-baked failover roster, covered in section 5. The results below are what those 8 seats
|
|
produced, and we report them at 8 seats rather than extrapolating to 11.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="callout callout--proof">
|
|
<strong>The pipeline is its own reference implementation.</strong> The full architecture is
|
|
documented in the companion
|
|
<a href="architecture.html">technical architecture document</a> to a standard where an engineer
|
|
can implement it from the spec alone. VerdictTank is pre-revenue. We make zero claims about
|
|
users, beta cohorts, or external validation. What we claim is narrower and verifiable: the
|
|
architecture is built, the pipeline runs, it was executed against three real proposals on
|
|
2026-08-12, and it failed its own headline thesis in public.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 3. VALIDATION DATA ====== -->
|
|
<section id="validation">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">03</span>Validation Run: 3 Real Proposals, 8 Reporting Seats</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
Every figure in this section comes from the 2026-08-12 validation run. Nothing is modeled,
|
|
projected, or illustrative. The solo baseline is Claude Opus 5 scoring the same documents
|
|
against the same 10-dimension rubric.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Panel mean vs solo baseline</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr><th>Proposal</th><th>Panel mean</th><th>Solo baseline</th><th>Delta</th><th>Panel spread</th><th>Solo spread</th><th>Verdict</th></tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>RFP Tank v1.0</strong></td><td>4.40</td><td>4.93</td>
|
|
<td style="color:var(--bad)">-0.53</td><td>3.7</td><td>1.4</td>
|
|
<td><span class="tag tag-red">NO GO</span></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>VentureBuilt v2</strong></td><td>6.14</td><td>6.10</td>
|
|
<td style="color:var(--accent2)">+0.04</td><td>5.4</td><td>2.4</td>
|
|
<td><span class="tag tag-amber">CONDITIONAL GO</span></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><strong>CartMySupply</strong></td><td>4.29</td><td>5.00</td>
|
|
<td style="color:var(--bad)">-0.71</td><td>2.6</td><td>1.8</td>
|
|
<td><span class="tag tag-red">NO GO</span></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="comp-table__us">
|
|
<td><strong>Aggregate</strong></td><td><strong>4.94</strong></td><td><strong>5.34</strong></td>
|
|
<td><strong>-0.40</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Panel spread exceeded solo spread on all 3</strong></td>
|
|
<td><strong>THESIS FAIL</strong></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Thesis under test: the panel must show a greater than 0.5 point advantage over the solo mean to
|
|
justify premium pricing. Result: FAIL on all three proposals and FAIL in aggregate. Panel
|
|
composition for this run was 8 reporting judges (4 Band A, 4 Band B) out of 11 specified seats,
|
|
a 73% coverage rate.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Why the panel scored lower</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The panel does not elevate scores. It sharpens error detection, and error detection on a flawed
|
|
document moves the number down. All three proposals contained severe cross-cutting defects that
|
|
additional specialist scrutiny exposed more precisely: fatal execution gaps, competitive
|
|
mispositioning, and legal blockers. The solo baseline was directionally correct on all three.
|
|
The panel added precision, not points.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
That is the entire finding, and it inverts the sales pitch. If your proposal is sound, the panel
|
|
will roughly agree with a good solo model and cost you more. If your proposal has a hole in it,
|
|
the panel finds the hole and the solo model does not. You are not buying a score. You are buying
|
|
the probability that a specific, expensive, named mistake gets caught before an evaluator or an
|
|
investor finds it for you.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Specialist divergence, measured</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr><th>Observation</th><th>Evidence from the run</th><th>What it means</th></tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td>Generalist seats run optimistic</td>
|
|
<td>Gemini Pro scored RFP Tank 6.7 as a Band A generalist and 3.0 as the Band B Market specialist. Same model, same document, 3.7 points apart.</td>
|
|
<td>Band A generalist scoring without specialist cross-check is systematically over-optimistic. The role, not the model, drives the score.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td>Role divergence beats model divergence</td>
|
|
<td>DeepSeek V4 Pro scored VentureBuilt 6.4 as Cross-Check C and 2.8 as Execution Feasibility. A 3.6 point split inside one vendor.</td>
|
|
<td>Panel diversity is not primarily about buying different vendors. It is about buying different questions.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td>One seat can flip a verdict</td>
|
|
<td>Remove the 2.8 Execution score from VentureBuilt and the panel averages 6.6, reading as a clean GO. With it, the verdict is CONDITIONAL GO with a named contractor-budget fix.</td>
|
|
<td>The lowest score in the panel is frequently the only one doing work. Averaging is what a solo model already does.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td>Tight clustering is also a signal</td>
|
|
<td>CartMySupply produced zero outliers beyond 1.5 sigma and the tightest spread of the three (sigma 0.89).</td>
|
|
<td>Unanimity across nine vendors on a low score is a far stronger NO GO than one model's low score.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 4. THE 14 ERRORS ====== -->
|
|
<section id="errors">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">04</span>The 14 Errors: Every One Named</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
This is the product. Fourteen material errors the 8-judge panel caught that the solo baseline
|
|
missed or underweighted, grouped by failure class. Each is a real finding from the 2026-08-12
|
|
run against a real document.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="errgrid">
|
|
<div class="errcard"><div class="n">3</div><div class="t">Revenue arithmetic errors</div><div class="d">Headline numbers that contradict the proposal's own inputs.</div></div>
|
|
<div class="errcard"><div class="n">4</div><div class="t">Competitive mispositionings</div><div class="d">Named, funded, shipping incumbents the document treated as absent.</div></div>
|
|
<div class="errcard"><div class="n">3</div><div class="t">Execution infeasibilities</div><div class="d">Build plans that cannot be delivered at the stated budget or timeline.</div></div>
|
|
<div class="errcard"><div class="n">2</div><div class="t">Legal compliance blockers</div><div class="d">Registration and privacy obligations that gate launch entirely.</div></div>
|
|
<div class="errcard"><div class="n">2</div><div class="t">Team capacity impossibilities</div><div class="d">Founder hour budgets that exceed the hours available.</div></div>
|
|
<div class="errcard" style="border-left-color:var(--warn)"><div class="n">14</div><div class="t">Total, across 3 documents</div><div class="d">Mean 4.7 material errors per proposal reviewed.</div></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>RFP Tank v1.0 · panel 4.40 vs solo 4.93</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th style="width:180px">Class</th><th>Error the panel caught</th><th style="width:150px">Caught by</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Revenue</span></td><td>Three mutually inconsistent Year-1 revenue figures inside one document: $1.2M, $1.361M, and $372K. Plus a 22% MRR ramp inconsistency the narrative never reconciles.</td><td>Financial Integrity</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Competitive</span></td><td>CLEATUS is a real, funded competitor at $4M seed with public product-led pricing of $39 to $250/mo, occupying the identical quadrant. The proposal does not name it. The Band A generalist seat actually cited CLEATUS pricing as a positive signal.</td><td>Market Reality</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Competitive</span></td><td>GovEagle pricing referenced at a 15x inconsistency against the proposal's own comparison table.</td><td>Market Reality</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Execution</span></td><td>Five of seven features marked TO BUILD at HIGH effort. The real-time Compliance Copilot alone needs 2 to 3 developers for 8 to 12 weeks. The plan allocates 4 weeks, solo.</td><td>Execution Feasibility</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Team</span></td><td>A solo founder shipping a 7-feature AI SaaS in 10 weeks, with hiring contingent on revenue that requires the product to already exist. A closed loop with no entry point.</td><td>Team / Founder</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Legal</span></td><td>No privacy policy and no terms of service, against FAR and CUI exposure, with ITAR implications on German-hosted infrastructure.</td><td>Legal / Regulatory</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Panel verdict: NO GO. Estimated rework 40+ hours. Recommendation is to cut scope to two features,
|
|
extend to 20 weeks, hire a second developer before month one, rebuild the financial model, and
|
|
address CLEATUS directly.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>VentureBuilt v2 · panel 6.14 vs solo 6.10</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th style="width:180px">Class</th><th>Error the panel caught</th><th style="width:150px">Caught by</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Execution</span></td><td>Contractor budget broken by a factor of 4 to 7. The stated $1,500/mo implies $11 to $22 per hour against a market rate of $75 to $100. At real rates that budget buys 105 to 140 hours and leaves roughly 800 hours on the founder.</td><td>Execution Feasibility</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Revenue</span></td><td>Year 2 stated on a run-rate basis rather than recognized revenue. Restated correctly, the healthy scenario loses roughly $11K to $18K.</td><td>Financial Integrity</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Competitive</span></td><td>The uniqueness claim is contradicted by shipping products. LivePlan Plan Review and IdeaProof already occupy the space.</td><td>Market Reality</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Team</span></td><td>37 engagements plus 950 hours plus an MSP day job. The three commitments cannot coexist in one calendar.</td><td>Team / Founder</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Panel verdict: CONDITIONAL GO with six named conditions. Estimated rework 15 to 20 hours. This is
|
|
the case that most clearly shows the value: the panel mean (6.14) and the solo mean (6.10) are
|
|
statistically tied, so on score alone the panel added nothing. What it added was a bimodal split,
|
|
Financial 8.2 against Execution 2.8, and the four errors above.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>CartMySupply · panel 4.29 vs solo 5.00</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th style="width:180px">Class</th><th>Error the panel caught</th><th style="width:150px">Caught by</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Revenue</span></td><td>The $2.7M headline is wrong by 7x to 10x against the proposal's own inputs, which compute to $269K. Stripe fees understated by roughly $11K per year. CAC absent entirely.</td><td>Financial Integrity</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Competitive</span></td><td>TeacherLists already solves the identical problem, free, across 2 million lists. Target ships native School List Assist. No technical moat is claimed or demonstrable.</td><td>Market Reality</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Execution</span></td><td>Amazon PA-API 5 removed Cart API support. Target has no self-serve multi-item cart API. Walmart requires separate catalog matching. The core mechanic of the product does not have a supported integration path at any of the three named retailers.</td><td>Execution Feasibility</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><span class="tag tag-red">Legal</span></td><td>Charitable solicitation registration required in 40+ states at $30K to $75K, plus COPPA exposure and FTC penalty risk. Compliance cost of $60K to $150K exceeds projected Year-1 revenue of $3K to $14K by an order of magnitude.</td><td>Legal / Regulatory</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Panel verdict: NO GO, unanimous, zero outliers, tightest spread of the three. Estimated rework
|
|
60+ hours. The build estimate of 116 hours was independently judged 4x to 10x too low.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="callout callout--win">
|
|
<strong>Read the legal row again.</strong> A $60K to $150K registration obligation against
|
|
$3K to $14K of projected revenue is not a scoring nuance. It is the difference between a
|
|
business and a fine. A solo model reading the same document returned a 5.0 and did not raise it.
|
|
That single finding is worth more than every point of score elevation the old thesis promised.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 5. JUDGE POOL v2.3 ====== -->
|
|
<section id="panel">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">05</span>Judge Pool v2.3: 11 Seats, 9 Vendors, Zero Double-Ups</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
The panel that produced the validation data ran at 8 of 11 seats because two seats hit a
|
|
provider credit wall mid-run and one model family could not be dispatched at all. v2.3 is the
|
|
spec written in response to that failure. Full detail lives in the
|
|
<a href="judge-pool-spec.md">judge pool specification v2.3</a>.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>The roster</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Band</th><th>Seat</th><th>Model</th><th>Vendor</th><th>Scores</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>0</td><td>Research Agent</td><td>Grok 4.5</td><td>xAI</td><td>No</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>A</td><td>Primary Reviewer</td><td>Claude Opus 5</td><td>Anthropic</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>A</td><td>Cross-Check A</td><td>DeepSeek V4 Flash</td><td>DeepSeek</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>A</td><td>Cross-Check B</td><td>Gemini Pro Latest</td><td>Google</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>A</td><td>Cross-Check C</td><td>DeepSeek V4 Pro</td><td>DeepSeek</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>A</td><td>Legal / Regulatory</td><td>Claude Sonnet 5</td><td>Anthropic</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>B</td><td>Financial Integrity</td><td>MiniMax-M3</td><td>MiniMax</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>B</td><td>Team / Founder</td><td>Claude Fable 5</td><td>Anthropic</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>B</td><td>Market Reality</td><td>Qwen3.7 Plus</td><td>Alibaba</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>B</td><td>Execution Feasibility</td><td>GPT-5.2 Pro</td><td>OpenAI</td><td>Yes</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>C</td><td>Synthesis & Integrity Gate</td><td>Kimi K2.6</td><td>Moonshot</td><td>No</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Nine distinct vendors across eleven seats. Nine distinct scoring models. Zero model double-ups:
|
|
no single model occupies two scoring seats, which is the constraint that keeps correlated
|
|
failure out of the panel mean. Maximum vendor concentration is Anthropic at 3 of 11 (27.3%),
|
|
comfortably inside the 40% ceiling. DeepSeek holds 2 of 11 (18.2%). Every remaining vendor holds
|
|
exactly one seat.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>What changed in v2.3</h3>
|
|
<div class="defense-grid">
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">Pre-flight health gate</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Before any scoring begins, the orchestrator pings every rostered model with a 5-second
|
|
probe and writes the result to a per-model health file. Any model returning HTTP 400,
|
|
HTTP 429, or a no-healthy-deployments error is swapped for its pre-assigned failover before
|
|
a single scoring call is spent. The 2026-08-12 run burned roughly 12 dispatches discovering
|
|
dead models at runtime. That failure mode is now closed.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">Pre-baked failover roster</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Every seat carries a named failover from a different vendor, resolved at gate time rather
|
|
than improvised mid-run. Failover selection preserves both the vendor-diversity ceiling and
|
|
the no-double-up rule, so a degraded panel is still a valid panel rather than an
|
|
accidentally correlated one.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">Credit-wall resilience</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The provider credit exhaustion that cost two seats mid-run is now detected at the gate and
|
|
treated as an availability failure, not an error. Anthropic capacity has been restored and
|
|
the Primary Reviewer seat runs Claude Opus 5 as specified.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">Permanent exclusions</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
One frontier model family proved structurally incapable of running as a panel seat under
|
|
our orchestration and is permanently excluded from the roster, not merely deprioritized.
|
|
Excluded models cannot be selected as a failover target either.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Latency</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
v2.3 targets a critical path of roughly 113 seconds, against 218 seconds measured on the
|
|
v2.1 architecture. The improvement comes from band parallelism: Band A and Band B seats execute
|
|
concurrently rather than sequentially, and the Synthesis seat is the only stage that must wait
|
|
for all scoring seats to return.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>The ten scored dimensions</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Every scoring seat rates the proposal 1 to 10 on the same ten dimensions, so panel spread is
|
|
computed dimension by dimension and not only in aggregate:
|
|
</p>
|
|
<div class="arch-box">
|
|
Problem Clarity · Market Opportunity · Product Differentiation
|
|
Revenue Model Viability · Go-to-Market Strategy · Competitive Moat
|
|
Financial Projections · Team / Execution · Risk Mitigation · Legal / Compliance
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>The Synthesis and Integrity Gate</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The Band C seat never scores. It reads all scoring output and performs a fixed checklist:
|
|
verify score arithmetic, compute panel means and per-dimension spread, compute the delta against
|
|
the solo baseline, flag every score more than 1.5 standard deviations from the panel mean with a
|
|
written rationale, and confirm the verdict follows from panel evidence rather than from the
|
|
Primary Reviewer alone. That gate is what turns eleven opinions into one auditable report.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 6. WORKED EXAMPLE ====== -->
|
|
<section id="worked">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">06</span>Worked Example: VentureBuilt v2, Where the Score Said Nothing</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
This is the clearest case in the validation set, because it is the one where score elevation
|
|
delivered exactly zero and error detection delivered everything. Real scores from the
|
|
2026-08-12 run.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="wt-scores">
|
|
<div class="score-block score-block--narrative">
|
|
<div class="score-label">Panel mean · 8 judges</div>
|
|
<div class="score-value">6.14<span>/10</span></div>
|
|
<p class="muted" style="margin-bottom:0">Median 6.45 · standard deviation 1.758 · spread 5.4 (min 2.8, max 8.2)</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="score-block score-block--compliance" style="border-left-color:var(--muted)">
|
|
<div class="score-label">Solo baseline · Claude Opus 5</div>
|
|
<div class="score-value" style="color:var(--muted)">6.10<span>/10</span></div>
|
|
<p class="muted" style="margin-bottom:0">Spread 2.4 · delta +0.04 · statistically tied with the panel</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Individual seat scores</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Seat</th><th>Model</th><th>Score</th><th>Sigma from mean</th><th>Flag</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Band B · Financial Integrity</td><td>MiniMax</td><td><strong style="color:var(--accent2)">8.2</strong></td><td>+1.17</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band B · Market Reality</td><td>Gemini</td><td>7.7</td><td>+0.89</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band A · Primary Reviewer</td><td>Opus 5</td><td>6.9</td><td>+0.43</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band A · Legal / Regulatory</td><td>Qwen</td><td>6.5</td><td>+0.21</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band A · Cross-Check C</td><td>DeepSeek V4 Pro</td><td>6.4</td><td>+0.15</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band A · Cross-Check B</td><td>Gemini</td><td>6.2</td><td>+0.04</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band B · Team / Founder</td><td>Kimi</td><td>4.4</td><td>-0.99</td><td>Within 1.5 sigma</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Band B · Execution Feasibility</td><td>DeepSeek V4 Pro</td><td><strong style="color:var(--bad)">2.8</strong></td><td>-1.91</td><td><span class="tag tag-red">OUTLIER</span></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
<div class="callout callout--fail">
|
|
<strong>The average is a lie of composition.</strong> A 6.14 reads as a solid, fundable
|
|
proposal with room to improve. The distribution says something completely different: the money
|
|
is excellent (8.2) and the delivery plan is close to unworkable (2.8). Those are not two
|
|
opinions about one thing. They are two accurate findings about two different things, and
|
|
averaging them produces a number that describes neither.
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>What the outlier actually found</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The 2.8 was not a grumpy model. The Integrity Gate challenged it at 1.91 sigma and it survived
|
|
the challenge on evidence: a contractor budget broken 4x to 7x, an architecture that regressed
|
|
from v1 with no schema and no API contract, and a founder workload of 37 engagements plus 950
|
|
hours alongside an MSP day job. The Team seat (4.4) and the Band A generalists (6.2 to 6.9)
|
|
all acknowledged the same workload problem. They weighted it less severely. The Execution
|
|
specialist is the only seat that forced it into the verdict.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<div class="highlight">
|
|
Remove that one seat and the panel averages <strong>6.6</strong>, which reads as a clean GO and
|
|
ships a proposal with an 800-hour founder gap in it. The specialist seat cost a few cents of
|
|
inference and changed the verdict.
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Fix-It items, ranked by materiality</h3>
|
|
<ol class="fixit-list">
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--critical">Critical</span><span class="fixit-delta">Execution</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Fix the contractor budget or cut the scope.</strong> $1,500/mo buys 105 to 140 hours
|
|
at market rates, not the volume the plan assumes. Raise to roughly $7,500/mo or reduce scope
|
|
to fit the hours actually purchased.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--critical">Critical</span><span class="fixit-delta">Financial</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Restate Year 2 on a recognized-revenue basis.</strong> On run-rate the year looks
|
|
healthy. On recognized revenue it loses roughly $11K to $18K. Present both.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--high">High</span><span class="fixit-delta">Competitive</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Withdraw or qualify the uniqueness claim.</strong> LivePlan Plan Review and IdeaProof
|
|
already ship in this space. Reposition on a defensible axis.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--high">High</span><span class="fixit-delta">Team</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Name the contractor and the sourcing plan before Phase 2.</strong> A budget line with
|
|
no named person is not a capacity plan.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--medium">Medium</span><span class="fixit-delta">Go-to-market</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Map the Year 1 to Year 2 GTM bridge.</strong> Eight net-new signups per month appear
|
|
in the model with no acquisition mechanism behind them.
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>
|
|
<div class="fixit-head"><span class="fixit-tag fixit-tag--medium">Medium</span><span class="fixit-delta">Legal</span></div>
|
|
<strong>Complete data protection and trademark clearance before Phase 0 to 1.</strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Panel verdict: CONDITIONAL GO. Estimated rework 15 to 20 hours. The solo baseline returned a
|
|
6.10 and none of the six conditions above.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 7. PRICING ====== -->
|
|
<section id="pricing">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">07</span>Pricing: Priced Per Error Found, Not Per Point Gained</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
Three tiers. The pricing logic follows the revised thesis directly: a panel run is worth what a
|
|
caught error is worth, and a caught error is worth far more than a point of score.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="pricing-grid">
|
|
<div class="price-card">
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Free</h3>
|
|
<div class="price">$0</div>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>1 full review</li>
|
|
<li>Top 3 Fix-It items</li>
|
|
<li>Panel score and spread</li>
|
|
<li>Reduced panel size</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<div class="price-purpose">Purpose: prove it on one document</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="price-card price-card--featured">
|
|
<div class="ribbon">Most popular</div>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Pro</h3>
|
|
<div class="price">$249<span>/mo</span></div>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>5 reviews per month</li>
|
|
<li>Full 11-seat panel</li>
|
|
<li>Complete Fix-It list, ranked</li>
|
|
<li>Panel spread and outlier flags</li>
|
|
<li>Solo-baseline delta comparison</li>
|
|
<li>Re-score loop with before and after</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<div class="price-purpose">Purpose: the founder or solo bid writer</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="price-card">
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">Enterprise</h3>
|
|
<div class="price">$799<span>/mo</span></div>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Unlimited reviews</li>
|
|
<li>White-label branding</li>
|
|
<li>Multi-seat team workspaces</li>
|
|
<li>Configurable judge pool</li>
|
|
<li>Corpus isolation and data controls</li>
|
|
<li>Priority pipeline and support</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<div class="price-purpose">Purpose: proposal teams running color reviews</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="price-card">
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top:0">White-Label</h3>
|
|
<div class="price">$1,499<span>/mo</span></div>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Everything in Enterprise</li>
|
|
<li>Full white-label deployment on your domain</li>
|
|
<li>Custom judge pool configuration</li>
|
|
<li>Dedicated corpus isolation</li>
|
|
<li>Reseller pricing model (re-bill reviews at $200-500 each)</li>
|
|
<li>Priority support SLA</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<div class="price-purpose">Purpose: consultancies and platforms reselling review as a service</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>What a review costs us, and why the panel is affordable</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The validation run cost approximately $150 in inference for three full proposals across eight
|
|
reporting seats, including retries against dead models before the health gate existed. That
|
|
burn is the honest anchor for panel economics: a clean 11-seat run on one proposal, with the
|
|
health gate preventing wasted dispatches, sits well inside single-digit dollars.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The reason a full 11-seat panel fits a $249 tier at five reviews per month is vendor mix. Only
|
|
a minority of seats run premium frontier models. The specialist Band B seats run strong
|
|
mid-tier models from five different vendors, which is where the error-detection value came from
|
|
in validation. Panel diversity is cheaper than panel depth, and diversity is what caught the 14.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Why the value question is not the score question</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Error class</th><th>Real example from validation</th><th>Cost of missing it</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Legal blocker</td><td>Charitable solicitation registration in 40+ states</td><td>$30K to $75K of registration, against $3K to $14K of projected revenue</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Compliance total</td><td>Full first-year compliance load on the same proposal</td><td>$60K to $150K, exceeding Year-1 revenue by roughly 10x</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Execution gap</td><td>Contractor budget short by 4x to 7x</td><td>Roughly 800 unbudgeted founder hours</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Revenue arithmetic</td><td>$2.7M headline against $269K computed from the document's own inputs</td><td>Credibility with any investor who checks the math, which is all of them</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Competitive blind spot</td><td>A $4M-seed funded direct rival never named in the document</td><td>The first question in the room, unanswered</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
A single caught item in the top two rows pays for a decade of the Pro tier. That is the entire
|
|
pricing argument, and it does not depend on the panel producing a higher score, which it does
|
|
not.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Positioned against the authoring category</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Comparison</th><th>Their price</th><th>VerdictTank</th><th>Multiple</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Pro vs Bidara Starter</td><td>$499/mo</td><td>$249/mo</td><td><strong>2.0x less</strong></td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Pro vs AutoRFP.ai Scale</td><td>$899/mo</td><td>$249/mo</td><td><strong>3.6x less</strong></td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Enterprise vs Bidara Starter</td><td>$499/mo</td><td>$799/mo</td><td><strong>1.6x more</strong></td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Enterprise vs AutoRFP.ai Scale</td><td>$899/mo</td><td>$799/mo</td><td><strong>1.1x less</strong></td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>White-Label vs AutogenAI</td><td>$30K+/yr custom</td><td>$1,499/mo</td><td><strong>1.7x less</strong></td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p>
|
|
We are not a proposal team in a box. We are one high-value pass in the workflow. A buyer already
|
|
spending $499 to $899 per month on an authoring tool should be able to add the error-detection
|
|
layer. Pricing Pro at $249 is below the GC AI critique seat benchmark at $500/mo,
|
|
and Enterprise at $799 is a peer price to the authoring tools that feed it.
|
|
White-Label at $1,499 makes resellers whole — they re-bill reviews at $200-500 each.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 8. COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE ====== -->
|
|
<section id="competitive">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">08</span>Competitive Landscape: Nobody Sells the Errors</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
Every AI-native player in this space is an authoring tool. They generate drafts. The nearest
|
|
substitute for what we do is not a competitor product at all. It is a single frontier model
|
|
and a prompt, and validation showed exactly what that substitute misses.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr><th>Product</th><th>Category</th><th>Published price</th><th>Relationship to VerdictTank</th></tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>AutogenAI</strong></td><td>Enterprise authoring</td><td>Custom, sales-led, no self-serve</td><td>Complementary. We find the errors in what it writes.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>Civio</strong></td><td>Gov RFP authoring</td><td>Custom, sales-led</td><td>Complementary. Downstream reviewer.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>Bidara</strong></td><td>Mid-market authoring</td><td>$499/mo Starter</td><td>Complementary. Transparent pricing, natural comparison anchor.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>AutoRFP.ai</strong></td><td>Response automation</td><td>$899/mo Scale</td><td>Complementary. Reviews its drafts.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>DeepRFP</strong></td><td>Lean-team authoring</td><td>$89/user/mo</td><td>Complementary. Lowest per-seat price in the category, natural partner.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td><strong>A solo frontier model</strong></td><td>DIY substitute</td><td>API cost only</td><td><strong>The real competitor.</strong> Measured: misses or underweights the material errors a panel catches.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr class="comp-table__us"><td><strong>VerdictTank</strong></td><td><strong>Panel error detection</strong></td><td><strong>Free / $249 Pro / $799 Enterprise / $1,499 White-Label</strong></td><td><strong>The only 11-seat, 9-vendor review panel with a published integrity gate</strong></td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Competitor prices are vendors' own published rates as of July 2026. Tools without public pricing
|
|
are shown as sales-led. Every named product was verified to exist and to occupy the authoring
|
|
category.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Why the DIY substitute is the row that matters</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Any buyer sophisticated enough to want proposal review can paste their document into a frontier
|
|
model and ask for a critique. That is the honest competitive threat, and it is the one we tested
|
|
against rather than around. The result is in section 3: the solo model returns a defensible,
|
|
directionally correct score, and it returned none of the six VentureBuilt conditions, none of
|
|
the CartMySupply compliance exposure, and none of the RFP Tank competitive reality.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="defense-grid">
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">1. Incumbents cannot sell honest criticism</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Authoring tools sell the promise that they write your proposal. A brutal error list on the
|
|
output that same tool just produced is a direct admission the generated draft is losing. It
|
|
is structurally against their interest. We have no draft to defend. The verdict is the
|
|
product.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">2. Review is where the money is decided</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Every serious bid already goes through a review gate, the color-team pass organizations run
|
|
manually by pulling senior staff off billable work. That labor is expensive, slow,
|
|
inconsistent between reviewers, and unavailable to the solo consultant. The demand is proven
|
|
by the existence of the manual process.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">3. Panel orchestration is a real moat</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Nine vendors, health gating, pre-baked failover, no model double-ups, and an integrity gate
|
|
that challenges its own outliers is not a prompt. It is an operations problem, and the
|
|
2026-08-12 run is the evidence of what it costs to learn.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0">4. An empty category sets its own price</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
A crowded category means the budget line exists and you fight for share. An empty review
|
|
category means we define the line and set the reference price, while remaining complementary
|
|
to every authoring tool in the table above.
|
|
</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div class="positioning-statement">
|
|
The authoring tools write proposals. A solo model grades them smoothly.<br>
|
|
VerdictTank tells you the fourteen things both of them got wrong.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 9. DEPLOYMENT ====== -->
|
|
<section id="deployment">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">09</span>Deployment Options</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
Two supported deployment shapes. Both are managed by IT Pro Partner below the application layer.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="strategy-cols">
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0;text-transform:none;color:var(--accent);font-size:15px">Option A · ITPP-INFRA Shared</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Runs on existing netcup RS 4000 infrastructure alongside IT Pro Partner operations. Same
|
|
Wasabi S3 backup pipeline, same Caddy reverse proxy, same monitoring stack (Prometheus and
|
|
Grafana). Zero new infrastructure cost. Suitable for launch through Series A.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>netcup RS 4000 (app3), Docker Compose</li>
|
|
<li>Wasabi S3 daily backups plus 15-minute sync</li>
|
|
<li>Managed by the IT Pro Partner infrastructure team</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="defense-item">
|
|
<h4 style="margin-top:0;text-transform:none;color:var(--accent);font-size:15px">Option B · Dedicated</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
Dedicated netcup or Hetzner instances with a dedicated S3 bucket. Full isolation from ITPP
|
|
operational infrastructure. Recommended for post-Series A or enterprise white-label
|
|
deployments requiring independent compliance scope.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Dedicated netcup RS or Hetzner CPX instances</li>
|
|
<li>Dedicated Wasabi S3 bucket, separate backup schedule</li>
|
|
<li>Managed by IT Pro Partner below the application layer</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
<strong>Shared responsibility:</strong> IT Pro Partner manages everything below the application
|
|
layer (OS, container runtime, networking, backups, monitoring) under both options. The
|
|
VerdictTank application and its model pipeline are the product team's responsibility.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="highlight">
|
|
<strong>Panel-specific operational requirement.</strong> Under either option the orchestrator
|
|
must hold credentials for nine separate model vendors and must run the pre-flight health gate
|
|
before every panel dispatch. Vendor credential rotation and per-vendor spend ceilings are
|
|
application-layer concerns and sit with the product team, not with infrastructure.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
<!-- ====== 10. LEGAL, PRIVACY, COMPLIANCE ====== -->
|
|
<section id="legal">
|
|
<h2><span class="n">10</span>Legal, Privacy & Compliance</h2>
|
|
<p class="lead">
|
|
Trademark clearance, the Minimum Viable Legal framework, the controller and processor role map,
|
|
the sub-processor training guard, corpus confidentiality, and incident response. Carried forward
|
|
from v4.0 and updated for the nine-vendor panel.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.1 USPTO trademark clearance: "VerdictTank"</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<strong>Status: preliminary clearance only. This is not a substitute for a formal search.</strong>
|
|
This assessment was performed with open-web search tools only. USPTO TESS is a
|
|
JavaScript-rendered application and a static fetch returns only the search shell with no query
|
|
results. Before any trademark application is filed, a live interactive TESS search or a paid
|
|
clearance search through a trademark attorney is required.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Open-web common-law search results (performed)</h4>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Search</th><th>Result</th><th>Assessment</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>"VerdictTank" exact, web-wide</td><td>Only hit is verdicttank.com itself</td><td>No third-party commercial use found</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>"Verdict Tank" space variant</td><td>Two incidental unrelated hits, neither a business nor a registered mark</td><td>No competing commercial use. Matches are noise.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Trademarkia and Justia proxy queries</td><td>No results returned</td><td>Consistent with no existing registration, but not equivalent to direct TESS</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Domain: verdicttank.com</td><td>Live, owned, serving the product</td><td><strong>Primary domain.</strong> Confirms operational use in commerce.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Domain: rfptank.com</td><td>Legacy holding, same naming convention</td><td><strong>Defensive only.</strong> Retained against a family-of-marks argument. Not a product surface.</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Recommendation</h4>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Before Series A close or any public marketing scale-up, commission a formal USPTO clearance search for Classes 9, 42, 35 and 45.</li>
|
|
<li>File an intent-to-use application for VERDICTTANK as a standard character word mark, Class 42 primary and Class 9 secondary.</li>
|
|
<li>Do not file on the basis of this document alone. It is a preliminary desk review.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.2 Minimum Viable Legal (MVL) framework</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
MVL is the internal gate name used in the architecture documents as the precondition for
|
|
onboarding white-label and enterprise customers. It is not one document. It is five interlocking
|
|
instruments that must all exist and be internally consistent before the white-label provisioning
|
|
gate turns green.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Component</th><th>Purpose</th><th>Applies to</th><th>Status</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Terms of Service</td><td>Governs the contractual relationship with every direct user</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Privacy Policy</td><td>GDPR and CCPA compliant notice of collection and use</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Data Processing Addendum</td><td>Article 28 GDPR processor terms</td><td>Enterprise, white-label</td><td>Hard gate on white-label</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>AI Disclaimer (DISC-001)</td><td>Non-removable versioned notice: output is AI opinion, not professional advice</td><td>Every scored surface</td><td>Engineering spec complete, legal copy needs counsel sign-off</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Limitation of Liability</td><td>Caps aggregate liability at the lesser of $100 or fees paid in the preceding 12 months</td><td>All tiers, embedded in ToS</td><td>Drafting required</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Governing law and venue</td><td>Recommend Delaware law with Georgia venue, pending confirmation of incorporation state</td><td>All tiers</td><td>Pending counsel</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>GDPR readiness</td><td>Lawful basis mapped per role. Articles 28, 33 and 34. SCCs or IDTA for EU transfers.</td><td>Any EU user</td><td>Framework mapped, SCC execution pending white-label launch</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>CCPA and CPRA readiness</td><td>Service-provider contract terms and a consumer rights workflow</td><td>Any California resident</td><td>DSAR workflow build pending</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
The Free, Pro and Enterprise tiers require Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and the AI Disclaimer
|
|
at minimum before any paid launch.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.3 Controller and processor role map</h3>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Data flow</th><th>Role</th><th>Legal basis</th><th>Agreements required</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Free tier submission and review</td><td>Controller</td><td>Contract plus legitimate interest</td><td>ToS, Privacy Policy</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Enterprise org admin and org users</td><td>Joint controller</td><td>Performance of contract</td><td>ToS, Enterprise DPA (Art. 26 GDPR)</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>White-label tenant end-users</td><td>Processor</td><td>Tenant's instructions</td><td>DPA, SCCs or IDTA, published sub-processor list</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Panel model API calls, all nine vendors</td><td>Controller of the vendor relationship. Each model vendor is a sub-processor.</td><td>Legitimate interest</td><td>Sub-processor training guard plus a DPA with each vendor</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Corpus contribution (aggregate scores and structural metadata)</td><td>Controller, secondary-use basis</td><td><strong>Opt-in consent.</strong> Cannot ride on contract or legitimate interest under the purpose limitation principle, Art. 5(1)(b).</td><td>Explicit opt-in UI, anonymization pipeline, retention separate from the review record</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<div class="callout">
|
|
<strong>The nine-vendor panel raises the sub-processor row from a formality to the primary
|
|
compliance surface.</strong> Every additional vendor seat is an additional sub-processor that
|
|
must carry a confirmable training opt-out before it can receive customer content. A vendor that
|
|
cannot satisfy the guard below cannot hold a panel seat, regardless of how well it scores.
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.4 Sub-processor training guard</h3>
|
|
<h4>Model clause for vendor DPAs</h4>
|
|
<div class="arch-box">
|
|
Vendor shall not use Customer Data (including all inputs, outputs, prompts, completions,
|
|
and any content submitted via the Vendor's API) to train, fine-tune, retrain, or otherwise
|
|
improve any machine learning model, except with Customer's prior written consent on a
|
|
per-instance basis. Vendor shall not retain Customer Data beyond the minimum period
|
|
technically necessary to provide the API response.
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<strong>Enforcement rule:</strong> a vendor without a public, contractually confirmable training
|
|
opt-out is excluded from the panel roster entirely and cannot be selected as a failover target.
|
|
The only acceptable path for a non-compliant provider is a customer-side, explicit, revocable
|
|
opt-in. Never a silent default, and never for corpus-eligible content. Each of the nine rostered
|
|
vendors is audited against this clause before it is eligible for a seat, and the audit is
|
|
re-run at each roster revision.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.5 Corpus confidentiality</h3>
|
|
<p>
|
|
The corpus is VerdictTank's most valuable long-term asset and its highest confidentiality
|
|
exposure.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Data type</th><th>Corpus-eligible</th><th>Rationale</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Dimension scores and panel spread statistics</td><td>Yes, opt-in</td><td>Structural, not identifying. Core signal.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Structural metadata (vertical, length bucket, revision count, deltas)</td><td>Yes, opt-in</td><td>Enables content and moat analytics</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Raw proposal text</td><td><strong>Never</strong></td><td>Confidential business content plus potential third-party PII</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Explanation and audit finding text</td><td><strong>Never</strong> in raw form</td><td>Critique text frequently quotes the submission verbatim</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Chat refinement transcripts</td><td><strong>Never</strong> as transcript content</td><td>Highest incidental-PII risk of any input surface</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<h4>Anonymization pipeline</h4>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><strong>Source-content exclusion.</strong> Raw text fields excluded at the schema and ETL level.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Structural extraction only.</strong> ETL reads scored and aggregated fields, never freeform text.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Identifier stripping.</strong> Review, user and org identifiers replaced with a one-way surrogate key.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Free-text quarantine.</strong> A stricter named-entity pass before any inclusion.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>k-anonymity floor.</strong> Public content published only when the cohort exceeds a minimum threshold.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p class="table-note">
|
|
Corpus contribution is off by default and requires explicit, separate opt-in. It is not bundled
|
|
into ToS acceptance and is revocable at any time from account settings.
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>10.6 Incident response</h3>
|
|
<p>Structured around the six functions of NIST CSF 2.0.</p>
|
|
<table>
|
|
<thead><tr><th>Function</th><th>VerdictTank action</th></tr></thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr><td>Govern</td><td>Named incident commander. Breach classification criteria documented before any incident.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Identify</td><td>Asset inventory: transactional database, corpus database, credentials for all nine model vendors, white-label tenant segments.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Protect</td><td>Row-level-security multi-tenant isolation, sanitization gate, sub-processor training guard, per-vendor spend ceilings.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Detect</td><td>Alerting on anomalous data access, bulk export, and cross-org query attempts. Health-gate telemetry on every panel dispatch.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Respond</td><td>GDPR: 72-hour notification to the supervisory authority (Art. 33). CCPA: notification without unreasonable delay.</td></tr>
|
|
<tr><td>Recover</td><td>Post-incident review documented. White-label tenants notified per their individual DPA terms.</td></tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Wrong-verdict liability</h4>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<strong>Scenario:</strong> a customer submits a proposal, receives a favorable panel verdict,
|
|
acts on it, and the verdict was wrong in a way that led to a bad decision. This is primarily a
|
|
reputational risk. The liability cap bounds legal exposure and does nothing for reputation.
|
|
</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong>Legal layer:</strong> the AI disclaimer fails closed on every surface, a $100 or 12-months-of-fees liability cap applies, and the terms explicitly instruct users not to rely on AI output for investment decisions.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Confidence calibration:</strong> every verdict ships with panel spread, standard deviation, and outlier flags. A verdict with a 5.4-point spread is a materially different signal from a unanimous one, and the report says so on its face.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>The published FAIL:</strong> section 3 of this document is itself part of the defense. We publish the case where our own thesis failed, which is a stronger honesty posture than any disclaimer.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Incident playbook:</strong> do not litigate merits publicly, point to the auditable disclaimer version shown to the user, offer a private re-review, and disclose plus correct any systematic flaw found.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Model provider outage disclosure</h4>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong>Public status page</strong> distinguishing VerdictTank infrastructure incidents from upstream model provider incidents.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>Degraded-mode behavior:</strong> a panel that ran short of its full eleven seats is flagged visibly with the seat count and which roles failed over. We never silently substitute a provider without disclosure. The 2026-08-12 run is reported at 8 of 11 seats throughout this document for exactly that reason.</li>
|
|
<li><strong>SLA language:</strong> uptime commitments are qualified as dependent on upstream provider availability.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</section>
|
|
|
|
</main>
|
|
|
|
<footer>
|
|
<div class="wrap">
|
|
VerdictTank v5.0 · <a href="https://verdicttank.com">verdicttank.com</a> ·
|
|
<a href="architecture.html">Technical Architecture</a> ·
|
|
<a href="judge-pool-spec.md">Judge Pool Spec v2.3</a> ·
|
|
<a href="index-v4.0.html">Prior version (v4.0)</a><br>
|
|
Pre-revenue. Thesis revised on measured data from the 2026-08-12 validation run.
|
|
All domain references are <code>verdicttank.com</code>; <code>rfptank.com</code> is retained
|
|
as a defensive holding only.<br>
|
|
Every score, delta, spread and error count on this page comes from that run. Nothing is projected.
|
|
</div>
|
|
</footer>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|