Two sides · one call
Ten sharp minds argue your question — for and against, with sources — and a judge turns the debate into one clear call. Critical thinking and the wisdom of a full room, automated, with a memory of how your calls turn out.
Ask → advisers argue → the judge rules → one key question back. Click a stage.
Type it plainly. Attach a contract or a screenshot if it helps.
Ten advisers argue both sides — every claim with its source.
A call on a five-point scale, a confidence, and what would change it.
Lean yes · Medium confidenceIt asks you the one thing that would change the call. Answer, and the judge re-rules — confidence before → after.
A worked example — the verdict first, in plain language. The full brief is one click away.
Take the Denver offer — but only after the relocation package is in writing.
Take the Denver offer, conditional on the relocation package being written into it.
Is the relocation package — moving costs, temporary housing, a return clause — in the written offer?
It's the against side's strongest point.
Denver's cost-of-living index runs roughly 12% under your current metro and the offer is +31% base; even after Colorado's flat income tax you net about 18% more real income.
bls.govnumbeo.comYou've said the current role is maintenance-heavy; the Denver posting lists platform ownership — that's the résumé line, not the salary.
Nothing about moving costs, temporary housing or a return clause is in the written offer; verbal relocation promises are the most common post-hire dispute.
A single-income quarter in a new city eats most of the raise — this is the fact the crux question targets.
Two-year career trajectory and a household move; high but recoverable.
Medium — a return move is possible but costly within 12 months.
The paperwork risks are real but negotiable in a week; none of them touch the reason to go — the role and the income.
An 18% real gain evaporates in a single-income quarter; until the partner's search closes, the number is not the number.
Strongest attack: The verdict leans on a raise that a single-income quarter would erase.
Judge's answer: Conditioning the yes on written relocation terms and a vest bridge covers most of that gap; the crux answer settled the rest.
Six archetypes, twelve legends. Tap to seat them; empty seats fall back to the classic panel.
Add coworkers or a saved group. They read the brief, give their call in 30 seconds, and it can be folded into the verdict.
A verdict is half a decision. Three days later the engine asks how the call actually turned out — and that answer is what makes the next one sharper.
A chat can remember the conversation. It can’t keep your track record.
One answered question moves the verdict most.
A chat asked once, versus our loop. Anyone can rerun it.
Short enough to run before the meeting.
| Decision Engine | One chatbot | A smart friend | A coin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argues both sides on purpose | ✓ | — | sometimes | — |
| Cites its evidence | ✓ | rarely | — | — |
| Gives a confidence you can hold it to | ✓ | — | — | 50% |
| Asks the key question back | ✓ | — | ✓ | — |
| Keeps score of how it did | ✓ | — | — | — |
Pay for depth, memory and volume — not for the advisers.
35 decisions pooled across 5 seats, shared history and a team decision log.
Yes. Free runs all ten advisers, the live web search and the Claude judge. What you don't get is memory (history, outcome reviews, personalisation), the deeper rounds (rebuttal, red-team, framing) and volume.
They're public-domain historical figures — Rockefeller, Sun Tzu, Marcus Aurelius — argued in character from their documented principles. No living people, no photos; portraits are generated medallions.
After the verdict, the engine finds the one open question whose answer would most change the call and asks you. Answer it and the judge re-rules on the same debate — no new advisers, no new cost.
Two sides · one call
Put the whole room on your next decision — ten advisers, one judge, one key question. Free, about two minutes.
Ask your first question →