Get another view on an AI answer.
Paste an answer, recommendation, or draft. Ask other models to find weak assumptions, missing context, and alternatives worth considering.
Two free Refinement reviews each month · No credit card required
Useful feedback needs the original context.
Include the original question, the answer, and any constraints or sources it relied on. Tell the reviewers what you plan to do with the result.
Ask a specific question: which claim lacks evidence, what alternative was missed, or what would change the recommendation? This makes the review easier to assess.
What to look for in the review.
Find the unsupported step
Ask where the reasoning moves beyond the evidence provided.
Consider an alternative
Ask for a credible explanation or option that the first answer did not address.
Decide what to check
Use unresolved objections to guide source checks or a conversation with a qualified reviewer.
A reassuring answer is not the same as a second opinion
The difference appears in how the reviewer receives context, what it is required to test, and whether unresolved concerns survive the final summary.
| Review question | Typical chatbot check | Structured second opinion |
|---|---|---|
| Was the first framing challenged? | Often accepts the supplied frame | Independent analysis can precede exposure |
| Were alternatives considered? | Only if explicitly requested | Required positions or scenario branches |
| What counts as a problem? | Generic correctness | Decision-specific criteria and reversal conditions |
| Can reviewers challenge each other? | Usually one model self-critiques | Cross-provider critique and defense |
| What happens to uncertainty? | Smoothed into caveats | Fault lines and blocked conditions remain visible |
| Can another person audit it? | Scattered conversation | One shareable chronological review |
Prepare a useful review.
Give reviewers a clear question and enough context to examine it.
A recommendation before it reaches leadership
Ask the panel to identify the premise carrying most of the recommendation, the strongest omitted alternative, and the evidence that would reverse the decision.
An AI answer before you reuse it
When a chatbot generates a claim, plan, or explanation that will leave the chat box, review the exact output.
A second model is still a model, not an independent fact source.
Two systems may have learned the same erroneous account or rely on the same missing context. Even cross-provider agreement should be checked against primary documents, measurements, and accountable expertise. Use the panel to locate what deserves verification, not to replace verification with a vote.
Privacy and authorization matter as well. Do not upload confidential, privileged, regulated, or personally sensitive material unless your organization permits it and the configured data handling meets your obligations. Redact unnecessary details and preserve the minimum context needed for the review.
What to know before you run the panel
Can I paste a ChatGPT or Claude answer into RigorDesk?
Yes. Include the answer, the original question, relevant constraints, and what decision depends on it. For a cleaner test, ask at least one reviewer to analyze the underlying case independently before it critiques the supplied response.
What should a good AI second-opinion conclusion contain?
It should state what survives review, what needs correction, which evidence is missing, the strongest alternative interpretation, and the condition that would change the recommendation. It should also distinguish model disagreement from a demonstrable factual contradiction.
Does agreement mean the answer is correct?
No. Models can repeat the same mistake or rely on the same weak source. Read the objections and check important claims against evidence.
Why use other models instead of asking one to critique itself?
Self-critique can help. Other models and specific review roles provide additional responses to compare. The format determines whether reviewers begin independently or see earlier answers.
Does this replace human review?
No. Use the findings to improve a draft or prepare questions for a responsible reviewer. The models do not approve a decision or verify every claim.
Bring your next draft.
Create a free account to draft or import your work. Choose the reviewers and settings before starting a review.