Plainly
Where Opponentura gets it wrong
We sell a review of decisions, not infallibility. Below are the places where a hearing is weaker than we would like it to be. The list is ours because you will ask these questions anyway, and answering them before you pay is cheaper than explaining afterwards.
The review is no stronger than what you told us
The panel works with your account of the matter and your documents. A fact you did not mention does not exist for the hearing: stay silent about a personal guarantee and it will not appear in the report. Volume is capped too — up to 80 A4 pages on the top plan; beyond that we say what we did not accept instead of pretending to have read it. So the cheapest upgrade in quality is not a pricier plan but a full answer at intake.
Models can be wrong too
We separate critics by role and by vendor: part of the panel runs on Anthropic engines, part on OpenAI, and each side checks the other's facts. That lowers the risk of a shared mistake without removing it — the models trained on overlapping data and share some of the same misconceptions. Hence our wording: independent passes, different roles and models from different vendors — not “independent expertise”.
Web search does not guarantee completeness
Before printing, the report passes a fact review by another vendor's engine with live search. It has three outcomes: confirmed, corrected, not confirmed. The third is a legitimate result, not a defect: a flag beats a handsome link to a document that does not exist. Fresh news, a closed registry or a paper that never reached the web stay outside the review.
We are likelier to overstate a risk than to miss it
A panel of critics is built to look for threats, and that has a price: caution is easily mistaken for quality. Worse, we have a vested interest here — the refund guarantee depends on the number of severe findings. So “critical” or “high” is assigned only when all four conditions hold: a concrete damage scenario, a stated basis (a fact, a document, a calculation or your own words), a stated effect on the choice, and a verifiable next step. Miss one and the severity drops. The share of severe findings in every report is counted by the service itself and reported to the owner when it exceeds a threshold. And a separate pass does re-check whether the panel overstated things: after the synthesis the report is read by a proportionality reviewer running on another vendor's engine. It names what genuinely changes the decision, what is an ordinary cost of doing business, and lowers the severity of findings that fail the four conditions. It may lower, never raise, and it cannot touch the verdict — that is the panel's work. In the document its output is the “Proportionality” section, right after “The essentials”.
You can see what a finding rests on
A finding carries an origin tag, set by its weakest link. Honestly about where we are today: not every finding is tagged. The service measures the tagged share against a threshold rather than promising full coverage — and in our first reports external facts more often end in “not confirmed” than in a link. We would rather say so here than leave you expecting footnotes. The tags: [customer's words] — as you told us, unverified; [document] — from a file you attached; [public source] — from a public source with a link; [calculation] — arithmetic on your own numbers; [assumption] — a critic's supposition; [panel's inference] — a conclusion drawn from the above. The tag reflects the weakest link. It is inconvenient for us and useful for you: without it a model's guess and a fact backed by a document look equally weighty on the page.
We do not measure your mind
The decision-bias reviewer writes “your words show signs of such and such a bias — here is the quote”. He does not write “we measured your level of bias”: measurement requires standardized instruments, which we do not administer mid-hearing. This is an assessment of a text, not a diagnosis of a person.
The report does not replace a professional
A hearing is not legal, medical, tax or investment advice and does not replace a qualified opinion. The opposite is true: the document is built so that you can walk into a lawyer's office with ready questions instead of a vague “please take a look”. Some matters — medical, narrowly industrial, forensic — require a live specialist, and we say so inside the report.
A verdict is a snapshot dated to the hearing
The world keeps moving after the seal goes on. That is why the report states the conditions for revision, and why follow-up comes after: reminders about the action items and a repeat hearing with the same panel if circumstances changed. We will never quietly rewrite old reports — a new document is issued and the old one stays as it was.