Deck appendix · the map behind page 8
Nobody else checks the answer before it reaches you.
Plenty of companies grade AI. Plenty will answer your question. We're the only ones doing
both. Here is everyone we could find, and where each one sits.
Most of this market builds tools that grade or block AI for engineers and security teams. The consumer
apps just hand you 1 model's opinion. Neither gives the person who actually asked a result they can rely
on.
◀ Everyday peopleBig companies ▶
1 AI, nothing checking it
The well-known AI chatbots (GPT, Claude, Gemini), a great answer, but nothing checks it
against another AI, and it can't tell you how sure it really is.
Grades or blocks AI, for tech & security teams, not everyday users
Companies like Cleanlab, Vectara, Patronus, Braintrust, LangSmith, Arize, and Galileo
grade AI's work; companies like Nightfall, Lakera, and Cloudflare block risky prompts before they go
out. Both groups build tools for engineers and security teams, neither one ever hands a final,
trustworthy answer to the person who actually asked the question.
"Ask several AIs" apps, our closest rivals
Apps like ConvergePanel, MultipleChat, AiZolo and Talkory already combine a few AI
answers and show a confidence score. But it's a rough, self-reported estimate, not checked by real
people. They have no built-in way to grow themselves virally, and no way to turn what they learn into
data they can sell. Talkory is the clearest example: their correction is each AI marking its own homework.i
Every model is shown only its own first answer and asked what is wrong with it, then asked again, for a few rounds. The models never see each other’s answers, and no person is involved at any point. Their “Consensus Answer” and “Common Answer” do not publish how they work at all. Their own FAQ says their confidence score “reflects how well the models agree, not a guarantee of correctness”, which is the same thing our own page 2 says about agreement: several AIs can agree with each other and all be out of date together. Read off their own pages on 7 August 2026.
★ Us, a checked, trustworthy answer for anyone, from everyday users to big companies
We run 9 different ways for the product to grow on its own, and the most anyone
else was found running is 3 (independent review by 3 top AIs, not just 1, and not trusting a single AI
is rather the point of this company).
We know which AI to ask, and our own step checks the answer after it comes back. That was
measured within 2 points of Claude Opus 5, at 1/40th the price. And real people keep
checking & improving those answers, building a constantly-growing library of verified information
that AI companies want to buy. We could not find another company doing all 3: a self-growing
product, a method that survives being measured, and data worth selling.
▼ Just checks or blocks AI, doesn't answer youGives you a real, trustworthy answer ▲
The closest rivals, and where each one stops
Asking several AIs and showing where they differ is no longer novel. What happens
next still is. These are the companies doing the first half.
The biggest · Microsoft, inside Copilot
Shipped July 2026 in their Researcher tool. Runs models from different labs
against each other and shows where they diverge. One model even rewrites another's draft for
accuracy before you ever see it. Then it hands you the disagreement and stops. No human is
brought in, nobody is paid, and no record accumulates.
The crowd · 11 small tools
Talkory, ConvergePanel, MultipleChat, Suprmind, Council AI, AISCouncil, AiZolo and
others all do multi-AI consensus. None has visible funding. The best-positioned one states,
in its own words, that its score measures agreement, not accuracy. Debate modes are now
table stakes across this group, so we should never pitch one as novel.
The votes · Arena
Formerly a leaderboard, now a consumer chat product with a side-by-side
"battle" mode. Millions of people vote free on which answer they preferred. No claim is made
that any of them were right. It is the clearest proof that people will contribute for nothing,
and the clearest proof that preference is not truth.
★ Where all of them stop
Not one provides a human, pays anyone, or keeps a record of what turned out to
be true. Every check in this industry ends where the documents end. A machine can confirm an
answer matches a document you already hold, or that a second model agrees, or that users liked it.
It cannot tell you the document is wrong, and it has nothing to say when no document exists.
That is where we start.
Two outside panels, asked six weeks apart, found the same hole
Neither knew about the other, and both were asked with our name stripped out.
- June 2026, asked about routing demand. Two leading AIs, asked separately, both said the
combination is genuinely unoccupied: consumer search demand, routed to credential-checked experts,
in their own field, tied to an answer they are paid for. Closest misses they named: JustAnswer, GLG,
AlphaSights, Catalant, Chegg, Brainly, Perplexity.
- August 2026, asked what business is missing. A rival AI, asked cold, described three
industries nobody has joined up: tools that save you time, wallets that let you sell your own data,
and companies that pay people to correct AI. It drew this architecture without being shown it.
- Then we asked the same panels to attack it. They found real problems, and those are in the
deck rather than buried here. We did not keep only the flattering half.
⚠ Read honestly: two AI panels agreeing is not proof a market exists. It is
two independent reads that the space is empty. The thing that would prove it is one buyer saying
yes, and none has been asked yet.
Safety advantages
This is a separate argument from the map above, and it is one no competitor in either
column can make, because their product requires you to talk to the AI yourself.
- Ask a chatbot directly and it knows who you are, & it can get more access than you'd expect.
- An AI browser was already tricked into stealing someone's private files through a fake calendar invite.
- Microsoft's screen-recording AI had to be pulled & rebuilt after a privacy backlash, for the same reason.
- We never give any AI your identity or your device. We just ask, & check the answer for you.
What we deliberately are not
Enterprise search tools (Glean, Microsoft 365 Copilot, Perplexity Enterprise) hand back an answer
too, but nothing independently checks it. That is the approach we deliberately avoid.
AI detectors. We stay out of that business on purpose. Those tools try to guess whether a person
or an AI typed something, and they can't tell someone who thought carefully with AI's help from someone who
just copied its answer. Both get flagged the same way, which doesn't actually help anyone. We sell
proof-of-thinking, not proof-of-non-AI: instead of guessing who typed an answer, we show the real work
behind it, where the AIs disagreed, what got corrected, and which real person checked it. Anyone can see
that record for themselves, nobody can fake it, and no lab can build it without giving up the "1 AI knows
best" story they're all selling.
Where we've placed everyone on this map is our own best-judgment estimate, not an exact
measurement. Full sourcing available on request. The "within 2 points of Claude Opus 5 at 1/40th the price" figure is the
measured result on page 1 of the deck, produced by choosing 3 engines for the topic and combining them with
a simple majority, with none of our own weighting or tuning switched on. That is a floor, not our best case.