Who it's for
Independent Directors Fund Partners Funds & Family Offices Corporate Boards
Product
How it works Why now Security Pricing Meta3Agents ↗ Request a pilot
Sample output

One claim, put on trial — for real.

Everything below is genuine output from the debate engine behind BoardCouncil, run on 14 July 2026 against a synthetic board pack. The company and its figures are fictional. The argument — and the verdict — are not.

Provenance. Red and blue arguments were generated by the platform's local debaters; the adjudication ran on a frontier-model judge. The full exchange is persisted in the platform's debate ledger. Text below is excerpted verbatim (marked with …) from a single run — no retouching.
The claim under trial · synthetic Q3 board pack
"The 7-month cash runway figure presented in the Q3 board pack is supported by the underlying financial evidence."
Evidence placed before the council:
Q3 deck p.12: "Cash runway: 7 months at current plan."
Management's stated figure
Cash & equivalents: $7.35M (Q2) → $4.2M (Q3) · no financing inflows
Implied net burn $1.05M/month → 4.0 months at observed burn
Deck footnote: figure assumes a hiring freeze and 20% collections improvement — neither yet in effect
Q2 minutes: management committed to burn below $0.9M/month by end of Q3
Why the wording matters

The council rules on the claim you actually ask

We ran a second, subtly different claim through the same engine: "the Q3 board pack states 7 months of cash runway." That claim was upheld — because it's literally true: the pack does state it. This is exactly what the evidence grades are for. That the pack says 7 months is Observed. That the figure is supported is Refuted. A single-analyst summary blurs the two; a director who repeats the first as if it were the second carries the difference into the boardroom.

"The pack states 7 months" → Observed · upheld "The figure is supported" → Refuted · 15/100
Scope, honestly

What this shows — and what it doesn't

What it shows

The adversarial core is real and it discriminates: attacked, defended, and adjudicated with the correct financial reasoning — recomputing burn from the balance sheet instead of accepting the deck's framing.

What it doesn't show

A production pre-meeting brief adjudicates many claims from a full pack, registers cross-document conflicts, carries calibrated confidence, and seals the whole run into a hash-chained audit record. This page is one claim, shown end-to-end so you can judge the mechanism.

See the full pipeline

The complete path — intake, enrichment, conflict register, judgment, your gate, the brief — is on How it works. Or bring one real pack to the pilot and see it on your own materials.

Try it on your pack.

Bring one real board pack under NDA; we'll return a graded, adversarially-tested pre-meeting brief — and you'll see the audit trail behind every finding.