Samples
Real reports, not a demo
These are the documents the customers received. The file was not rebuilt or polished for the website, so its hash still matches our registry — download it and check for yourself on the verification page. No names, company names or identifiers appear in them: that is how the service works, not the result of our editing.
The reports are in Russian — the English panel is not open yet, and translating a sealed document would produce a different file that fails our own verification. Below is what each case was about; the original is one click away.
Your report will not end up here
The two customer cases are published with their consent: the founder asked each of them personally, and the permission is recorded in our registry — without that record a report is never published, however good it looks. Only the owner of the service ever asks, and only once the case is closed; the bot never asks. The promise of confidentiality outweighs the value of a nice sample.
The documents themselves carry no identifiers by design: the service never asks for a company name, registration details or personal names, so the panel never receives them. We checked all three files — not a single company name, address, phone number, email or tax ID. You cannot tell whose company it is.
What happens to your materials and how quickly they are
deleted — in the privacy policy; you
choose the retention mode yourself with /privacy in the bot.
Should we launch Opponentura without demand validation?
Verdict: REVISE · panel: 7 critics · recess and a second round · substantive objections: 18 · orders: 8 · 12.08.2026
The founder brought his own service to the panel — the one you are reading about. The question was not «is the product good» but «is the demand proven»: the need was found in himself and his own circle, the first hearings are given to acquaintances for free, and not one stranger has paid. Seven critics attacked the design of the test, not the product, and returned REVISE: the hypothesis is stated so that it cannot end in a negative result.
Replacing a procurement director with an AI agent
Verdict: REVISE · panel: 3 critics · substantive objections: 3 · orders: 6 · 10.08.2026
An importer automated order calculation in his accounting system and wants to replace the head of procurement — salary 250k ₽ — with a junior at 100–120k within a month or two. The panel examined not the saving but whether it is proven: what is actually left for the human after automation, and whether the timeline fits the dismissal procedure the labour code requires.
Shrinking a restaurant chain — and which sites to close first
Verdict: REVISE · panel: 7 critics · tournament of 4 drafts · recess and a second round · substantive objections: 16 · orders: 8 · 10.08.2026
The owner of ten restaurants in Moscow loses money every month, owes wages and faces a rent payment in early September. No decision existed yet: close some sites, hand them to other operators, relaunch the chain in a cheaper format, or shut down entirely. The same panel went through every option in turn.
Verdict, panel size, counts and dates come from our hearing log, not from prose written by hand.