---
title: Who each one is for
description: "Three audiences, ordered by opportunity rather than treated as equal: the corporate user assessing an agent they already run, the investor buying a signed review, and the founder — who is a reverse sale, and the hardest of the three."
lead: "**Order matters here, and the page reflects it.** Three audiences, and they are not equally served by what is on this site. One of them has a market above it and nothing underneath it. One of them has nothing at any price. One of them has two funded incumbents and a free tier, and is on this page only as a **reverse sale**."
order: 3
toc: true
---

## 1. The corporate user, assessing an agent they already run

**The market anchors between eight and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and
nothing sits underneath it.**

That gap is the whole opportunity. Somebody running an agent today, who wants to
know what they actually granted it, has a choice between a five-figure engagement
and nothing. [Tier 1](/d/t1/) is ten pounds and answers the smaller version of the
question; [tier 2](/d/t2/) is the version with the regulation attached.

**What they are buying is the delta**: the union of what a credential permits,
against what the holder is authorised and expected to do, and the excess authority
between the two. **That delta is computed and never stored.** It is not a thing we
keep about you.

## 2. The investor, buying a signed review of a company they are backing

**No productised, affordable, signed investor security review exists at any price
— and every component of one is already written.**

That is the emptiest quadrant on this page, and the one the top two tiers point
at. [Tier 3](/d/t3/) is a person reading a situation. [Tier 4](/d/t4/) is a team.

**It is also where the constraint bites hardest.** Selling buyers the question,
selling suppliers the answer, and selling an opinion that vouches for the
suppliers is the combination two industries have already regulated. So:

- **The company issues every opinion**, with an express non-assumption of personal responsibility on its face. A product sold on a named individual's judgement runs at the test for assumed personal responsibility.
- **The people who sell do not sign.** That constrains this site's own layout: the signature block and the checkout must not name the same person, and on this site neither names anyone at all.
- The **signed opinion is a separate add-on with separate wording**, and that wording does not exist yet. {{claim:opinion-wording-absent}}

## 3. The founder, and only as the reverse sale

**Two funded incumbents, a free tier beneath them, and both already publish the
answer.** Selling a founder a security posture document is selling into a
commoditised tier.

**The unoccupied offer is the reverse one: telling a founder what diligence will
find, before it runs.** Same components, opposite direction, and it is the only
version of this that is not already free somewhere.

## What none of the three is buying

**Raw findings.** Recall-optimised agents run at 0.388 precision — about three
findings in five are wrong {{claim:precision-0388}}. A list of findings at that
precision is not a product, it is a homework assignment with a bill attached.
**What is sold is triage**: every finding that reaches a buyer has been reproduced
first, not reviewed.

**A verdict about a third party.** Where this estate names a competitor, a vendor,
a standards body or a platform, it publishes the record — facts, dates, sources —
and never the verdict, with no evaluative adjective attached to anybody's name.
That rule holds on the pages you can read and it is [the reason the documents area
is still closed](/dev-packs/).

**A mark of conformity to a standard.** Nothing here is one, nothing here claims to
be one, and the language of conformity marking is kept off this site entirely —
it raises the standard of care beyond ordinary negligence for no benefit to a
buyer.

---

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).