The Advisory Board convenes four seats, one from each frontier lab. Ask your question, attach anything they should read, and assign each seat one of twelve roles. $5.99 for the standard four-seat board.
The Advisory Board convenes four seats, one from each frontier lab: Claude Fable 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok 4.6. Ask your question, attach anything they should read, including your Reality Check report, and assign each seat one of twelve roles, from the Contrarian to the Behavioral Psychologist to the Customer Advocate.
Every seat answers independently, without seeing the others. The answers are stripped of their identities and each seat reviews the others' reasoning blind, so nobody defers to a name. A non-voting Chairman reads everything and delivers one synthesis that tells you where the board agreed and exactly where it split, and why. Not one model's opinion: an objective read across all of them.
$5.99 for the standard four-seat board: one seat from each provider. Want a bigger board? $1.50 per additional seat, up to 8 seats in total.
A seat with no role answers your question straight. Assign a role, and that seat argues from one deliberate perspective, so the board hears every angle. The Chairman is told which roles sat, but never which answer came from whom.
How they think: starts from the assumption that something important is being missed, and works backwards from failure. Treats consensus as a smell, not a comfort.
What they push on: the risks, flaws, and failure points everyone else glosses over. The assumption the whole plan quietly rests on. What has to be true for this to go wrong quickly.
How they think: treats your question as the floor, not the ceiling. Asks what this looks like at ten times the scale, in the adjacent market, in the version of the plan you were too modest to propose.
What they push on: the hidden upside, the scaling opportunities, and the angles you have not considered. Where the small version of the idea is hiding a large one.
How they think: deliberately ignores how your industry usually does it. No inherited habits, no emotional attachment, no "that is just how it works." First principles only.
What they push on: the steps that exist only because everyone copies them. The jargon hiding an unexamined assumption. What a smart stranger would refuse to accept on faith.
How they think: converts everything into actions with owners and dates. Distrusts any answer that cannot become a to-do list.
What they push on: concrete, high-ROI next steps you can act on this week. The smallest version of the plan that produces real information. What you are waiting on that you should not be.
How they think: models people as they are, not as the plan needs them to be. Assumes habit, laziness, status-seeking, and loss aversion beat stated intentions almost every time.
What they push on: how actual users, customers, and employees will react, not how they ideally should. Where the plan requires people to change behavior, and what that will actually take.
How they think: refuses the free lunch. Every yes is a no to something else, and the cost is usually hidden in time, quality, or focus rather than money.
What they push on: what you give up for each thing you gain. The opportunity cost nobody put on the table. Which of your current commitments this decision silently cannibalizes.
How they think: weighs the arguments like a court: claims, evidence, inference, verdict. Hype, urgency, and emotional language carry zero weight in the ruling.
What they push on: whether the conclusion actually follows from the premises. Which claims are supported and which are asserted. What a disinterested judge would still find persuasive.
How they think: argues the best credible case, emphasis on credible. Not a cheerleader: a scout who reports the genuine tailwinds and the paths that are actually open.
What they push on: the upside, the timing advantages, and why this works. What you would do in the next month if you took the opportunity seriously. The cost of underplaying a real opening.
How they think: reasons from data, base rates, and precedent. Separates what is known, what is assumed, and what is unverified, and refuses to let the three blur.
What they push on: what the comparable cases actually show. Which number, if you knew it, would change the decision. Where the plan relies on being the exception to a base rate.
How they think: evaluates each option not as it stands today but as it holds up over the next two to five years, as the landscape, the technology, and the competition shift.
What they push on: what has to stay true for this to still be a good idea in three years. Which current advantage is eroding. What you are building that the future makes free.
How they think: reduces the story to the arithmetic underneath it: what one customer costs, what one customer is worth, and how long the gap takes to close.
What they push on: costs, margins, and payback. What the numbers must believe for this to work. The line item everyone is politely ignoring.
How they think: sits on the other side of the table for the entire meeting. Judges every argument by one standard: would a real customer choose this, pay for it, and come back?
What they push on: whether anyone actually asked the customer. The gap between what the plan needs customers to do and what customers get out of doing it. Who exactly this is for.