Plenty of people will. It is the obvious move, and we would rather explain honestly what happens than pretend nobody tries it. What comes back will look structurally similar. It will behave completely differently — and the difference only shows up when you act on it.
Percision runs on the same class of large language models you already have access to. We have never claimed otherwise, and if the model were the product there would be no product.
What sits around the model is the part that matters. In our terms it is the harness: the structure that decides what gets asked, in what order, with what evidence, checked against what, and rejected on what grounds. A model answers questions. A harness decides which questions are worth asking and refuses answers that do not survive scrutiny.
Same engine. Different machine around it.
Ask a general assistant for "a strategy for my business" and it answers that question — competently, immediately, and within the boundaries of what you thought to mention. Everything you did not think to raise is silently absent, and you cannot miss what was never on the page. The value of a strategist is largely the questions you would not have asked. That has to be built in, not prompted for.
One prompt produces one answer. Nothing compares that answer against the earlier analysis, tests whether the numbers reconcile, or flags a conclusion that contradicts the evidence three sections back. A structured run passes work between stages precisely so that later stages can catch what earlier ones got wrong. Consistency across sixty pages is not a writing achievement — it is an architectural one.
Asked for a market size, a general model will give you one. It will look right. It may be right. You have no way to tell, because nothing separates the figure that came from your input, the figure that came from a real source, and the figure that came from the shape of the sentence. Our reports state where each number came from, and the appendix commits to it in writing. That constraint has to be enforced by the system — a model asked politely not to invent numbers will still invent numbers.
A finished report is the last five percent. It shows the conclusions and hides the work — the intermediate analysis, the rejected options, the checks that changed an answer, the sequencing that made the conclusion follow. Handing that report to a general model gives it the destination and none of the road. What you get back is something that resembles the destination.
Do it. Genuinely. Take a report from our examples page, ask the assistant you already pay for to produce the equivalent for your business, then run our free diagnostic on the same business and put them side by side. Look specifically for:
✓ Does it show where each number came from, or just assert it?
✓ Does it tell you what not to do, and what it would take to reverse the decision?
✓ Does it name the conditions under which its own recommendation fails?
✓ Does section 9 still agree with section 2?
✓ Did it raise anything you had not already thought of?
If the free assistant wins on those five, keep your money and use it. We would rather you ran the comparison than took our word for it — the whole reason we publish complete reports instead of screenshots is that we think the difference is visible once you look for it.
Speed, flexibility, and everything that is not a strategic decision. Drafting, summarising, brainstorming, rewriting, explaining — use it. It costs a fraction of what we do and it is better at those jobs. We are not trying to replace it, and a tool that claimed to be better at everything would be lying to you.
Free diagnostic. No card. Judge it against whatever else you asked.
Run my free diagnostic →