The auditable intelligence platform
Four published methodologies, run over your question, returning a document you can put in front of a board — with the method disclosed before delivery and every claim traceable to its source.
None of the four methodologies is published yet. The Studies methodology, version 3.4, is written and will be published before the first delivery; the PRISM, Surveys and Crucible methodology documents are not yet written. Where we are
The engine, in order: you approve the method, you sign the plan, four engines do the work, every claim is checked, and a document you can defend is delivered.
Institutions decide constantly, and they defend those decisions to people who were not in the room: a board, a donor, a ministry, an accreditor, a tender committee.
The work that makes a decision defensible has been priced out of reach. Below it sits a market of tools that produce a study-shaped document in minutes, with no method you can inspect and no sources you can check. Between the two, there has been nothing.
$199–799
An AI-generated feasibility report in fifteen minutes, with no method you can inspect, sold with a disclaimer that it is not certified for financing purposes.
$3,900
One cited study on your question, from 01lens. Fixed price, yours to publish.
$85,000–150,000
A year of custom institutional research from a specialist firm.
Published vendor pricing, 2026. The scale is not drawn to proportion.
39–77%
The factual accuracy PwC measured in cited AI research reports (Cited but Not Verified), even where more than 94% of their links worked. A working link is not a supported claim, and a document defended in a board meeting needs the second.
Not institutions in general. The individual who must take a decision to someone who does not trust them, was not present, and may want it to be wrong.
“Will the board accept this?”
You approve the plan before anything is written, and the study arrives fit for the board papers.
“Can this be a grant line item?”
A fixed price a project budget can carry, and the right to publish the result in your donor report.
“Can we run it in-kingdom, and can procurement approve it?”
Arabic-native output, in-region deployment, and a fixed annual capacity a tender committee can sign.
“Can I put my professional liability behind this?”
You license a published method you can read, not a branded document generator you cannot.
Most tools answer first and explain later, if at all. The 01lens platform reverses the order: you read the method, you shape the questions, you sign the plan, and only then is anything produced.
The methodology arrives in writing, named and versioned, before any work begins.
You decide: accept it, or walk away with nothing to pay
The engine asks before it writes. For the first stretch it only asks, in your vocabulary, and your corrections override what came before.
You decide: when the scope is right
The chapter plan is a document you approve, not a search plan the software edits on its own.
You decide: with your signature
On the final text, each claim is checked against its source and every source is fetched again. Anything unsupported is marked as judgment.
The engine shows: exactly which is which
With its evidence summary, its full bibliography, and the limits it could not close, stated plainly.
You decide: accept, or reject within 14 days
Each engine answers one question an institution keeps asking. Together they close a loop, so what one engine records becomes evidence for the next, and your evidence builds year on year instead of being bought again.
Diagnose
How good is what we already have?
A scored assessment that reports two numbers side by side, names the weakest dimension, and ends in a roadmap rather than a rating.
Method document not yet written.
$3,400 per assessment
Listen
What do our people actually think?
The index, weighting, bands and benchmark behind what your people tell you.
Not yet deliverable: how respondents are reached is still being decided.
$4,900 per deliverable
Investigate
What should we do about it?
A cited study on your question, planned from your confirmed scope and written in your own vocabulary.
Method version 3.4 written; published before the first delivery.
$3,900 per study
Validate
Will this survive contact with reality?
Your idea pressure-tested before it ships: the objections it has to survive, and how it fares against them.
Method document not yet written.
$600 per inspection
PRISM never reports one number alone. The weighted index always appears beside the conservative staged level, so the result cannot be quietly flattered.
Every deliverable carries an evidence summary, and it shows the weakest figure rather than hiding it. Here is a real one, from an instrumented run of the Studies engine against the same brief as a manual consultant study.
Studies engine, run v4
[ref: key]Backed by a recorded source that passed both checks. The key opens the source in the bibliography.
[agency judgment]Stated as judgment, on reasoning rather than on a source. Not an error, and never dressed up as evidence.
A document that hides its weaknesses is one question away from collapsing in the meeting it was written for. Ours tells you where to look first.
Each alternative supplies either the instrument or the labour, and licenses the result for inward use. These documents exist to travel outward.
| Feature | 01lens | AI report tools | Research subscriptions | Consultancies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method you can read before buying | Yes, versioned; published before the first delivery | No | No | Rarely |
| You approve the plan first | Yes, by signature | No | No | Yes |
| Every claim traceable to a source | Yes, or marked as judgment | No | Corpus-linked | In the consultant's files |
| Right to publish the result | Included | Unclear | Restricted | Per contract |
| Price of one deliverable | Fixed, from $600 | $199–799 | Annual seats | Quoted per project |
| Arabic-native | Yes, as a paid capability | Some | Often absent | Depends on the firm |
Based on 45+ products examined across four research streams, and published vendor documentation, 2026.
One price for one named deliverable. No seats, no token counts, no automatic overage. Many firms in this market publish no prices; a buyer who has to justify the spend should see it before the first call.
$600
$3,400
$3,900
$4,900
$1,800 per year
Quoted per deployment
US dollars, as of 19 October 2026. Engines per named deliverable; the Impact tier per year.
Answered the way the product works: the real part conceded, then the mechanism.
You do not have to take our word for it. Every claim resolves to a source you can open, the link check runs on the version that ships, and any sentence we could not back is marked as judgment rather than dressed as evidence. We print the proportion. And if you find a citation that does not hold, the deliverable does not consume a credit.
For a first draft, largely yes. What you cannot get is a method your board can inspect before the work runs, a plan you signed, a bibliography that has been fetched again, and a document you are licensed to publish. In published measurements, hallucinated-URL rates in leading research tools run from 3% to 13%. On a document you are going to defend, that is the whole problem.
Judgment about your politics, and someone to sit in the meeting. We supply the evidence base and the analysis; a consultant supplies advocacy. The two combine well; that is what white-label licensing is for.
Then run it inside your walls. In-region deployment is sold as a fixed annual capacity with an attested true-up, because a tender committee cannot approve an open-ended meter. You supply the model endpoint.
Not on these prices. For constrained budgets there is a different product, the Impact tier, with features removed rather than the price reduced.
A platform that asks you to trust its evidence should be plain about its own. This is the state of things as of 19 October 2026.
Then take the document to the people who were not in the room.