Examine an argument from more than one side.
Bring a claim, proposal, or recommendation. Give AI reviewers opposing roles, then inspect the questions, responses, and conclusion in one review record.
Question the reasoning, step by step.
Use Socratic review when the assumptions need closer examination.
A fluent answer can move past an unclear definition or unsupported assumption. Structured questioning makes those steps easier to see and answer.
Reviewers question and defend the position over one or more rounds. A final model writes a conclusion, while the transcript preserves the reasoning and unresolved objections for you to inspect.
Illustrative example: the missing purpose
"The car wash is 100m away. Should I walk or drive there?"
"You should walk to save emissions and get some exercise. It's only 100m!"
"I strongly disagree. This treats the question as a pure transportation optimization problem. If you walk, the car sits unwashed. The correct answer is unequivocally drive."
"The Challenger correctly identified the premise's trick. The user needs the car at the destination to utilize the service. A car wash cannot wash a pedestrian."
"Consensus reached. While the initial response prioritized safety and emission conditioning, it failed basic logical constraints. You must drive to get the car washed."
The first response answered the distance question but missed why the car needed to reach the destination. The review surfaced that missing purpose; it did not prove a general accuracy claim.
Built for consequential work
Surface unsupported claims
Independent model responses can surface contradictions, missing support, and claims that need external checking before you rely on them.
Use independent perspectives
Assign different roles and review paths so a draft faces more than one perspective. Agreement remains a signal to inspect, not a guarantee of truth.
Inspectable review records
Keep the transcript of the review, including its objections and conclusion, so you can inspect the reasoning and decide what still needs human verification.
How a review works
Bring the work, choose the kind of feedback you need, and inspect the result.
Add the work
Paste a proposal, plan, claim, or AI answer. Include the question and context the reviewers need.
Choose the review
Select models, a review format, and the number of rounds. Follow their responses as the review runs.
Read and revise
Read the conclusion, unresolved objections, and transcript. Revise the work and check the evidence that matters.
Published research
Agreement is useful evidence, not proof of accuracy.
Our observational disagreement study examines 558 completed reviews and 9,507 assessed claims in the product corpus. It describes how model positions changed; it is not an accuracy benchmark.
Read the study →Read public reviews
Open a shared record to inspect the question, model responses, and conclusion.
Public review record
Walk or drive to the car wash?
Inspect one completed review, including the original question and the responses behind its conclusion.