Draft and stress-test a business offer with an independent review team

The problem

A small business may turn an attractive idea into public claims before checking deliverability, differentiation, customer objections and evidence. Multiple independent lenses can expose assumptions before money is spent.

Agent job

Draft one bounded offer, obtain six independent role reviews, reconcile disagreements, and prepare a customer test and human decision packet.

Expected output

Versioned offer draft, six structured reviews, evidence audit, qualitative competitor-response analysis, disagreement log and proposed customer test plan awaiting owner approval.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Proposed benefit

A model can draft and organize critiques under explicit specialist lenses and keep a consistent evidence and disagreement record. This is a proposed decision-support benefit, not a measured efficiency claim.

Simpler alternative

One human can use the same checklist and worksheet without a bot team. For a small or familiar offer, this may be easier and avoid model costs and correlated hallucinations.

When to use

Consider the role design when a consequential offer has multiple unresolved assumptions and the owner has evidence and capacity to review outputs.

When not to use

Use a simpler checklist if inputs are too thin, the offer is routine, or there is no capacity to run actual customer tests. Persona consensus cannot resolve missing evidence.

Setup requirements

Mode

Manual isolated review contexts; no deployed orchestrator

Prerequisites

1. Owner-supplied business brief, deliverable capacity, budget and constraints

2. Versioned evidence ledger with claim scope and source dates

3. A frozen offer draft with ID and version

4. Six separate review contexts and one synthesis context with no external-action tools

Steps

1. Use Offer Architect prompt to prepare the first draft and an alternative.

2. Give each of six reviewers the same frozen draft, brief and evidence ledger in a fresh context.

3. Save review envelopes; validate required fields, role payload, version IDs and referenced evidence IDs.

4. Give all reviews to Synthesis Lead, then return revised claims to Evidence and Ethics Reviewer.

5. Stop with an owner decision packet before any customer contact, purchase test or publication.

Platform compatibility

Unknown and untested. No platform is selected or claimed supported. The design requires isolated text contexts and exportable structured responses; integrations, prices and capability-source verification remain open.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Business brief, capacity and offer constraints

   Source or owner

   Business owner

   Sensitivity

   Use illustrative or non-sensitive business data

   Permission needed

   Owner approval before sharing confidential material with an external model provider

2. Name

   Evidence ledger and source-linked public case summaries

   Source or owner

   Public sources and owner-authorized research

   Sensitivity

   Public information

   Permission needed

   Check rights before reproducing material; public access does not grant reuse rights

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Owner supplies brief, capacity, approved channels and source ledger. Mark missing facts and version all inputs.

   Expected output: Prepare evidence

   Approval gate: Owner approval before any outreach, testing with people, spending, or publication; drafting and read-only review only until then.

2. 2

   Offer Architect creates v1 and a simpler alternative. Freeze v1.

   Expected output: Draft offer

   Approval gate: Owner approval before any outreach, testing with people, spending, or publication; drafting and read-only review only until then.

3. 3

   Positioning, Skeptical Buyer, Channel, Behavioral, Game Theory, and Evidence reviewers each receive identical v1 and ledger in isolated contexts. Hide all other reviews until submission.

   Expected output: Independent parallel review

   Approval gate: Owner approval before any outreach, testing with people, spending, or publication; drafting and read-only review only until then.

4. 4

   Synthesis Lead records each conflict, checks factual disputes, carries uncertain alternatives into tests and preserves unresolved dissent. Evidence reviewer rechecks revised claims.

   Expected output: Reconcile disagreements

   Approval gate: Owner approval before any outreach, testing with people, spending, or publication; drafting and read-only review only until then.

5. 5

   Package the reviewed offer, unresolved assumptions and proposed customer-test protocol; stop for the owner’s decision. Do not recruit, spend or publish.

   Expected output: Draft decision packet and proposed test plan awaiting approval

   Approval gate: Owner reviews the packet; any later external research, spending or publication requires separate specific authorization.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Authored hypothetical example; not a model run, market test or customer result

Input

BotCurrent considers an original workflow planning worksheet, setup and approval checklist, task brief, acceptance checklist and worked example alongside free source-linked case summaries.

Price hypothesis

Amount

9

Currency

CAD

Status

proposed_not_finalized

Review objection

The buyer lens asks what the paid artifact adds beyond free information or a general assistant. The evidence lens rejects any claim that BotCurrent has already generated income or saved measured hours for customers.

Reconciled output

Create and inspect one sample artifact, explain exactly what is included and excluded, retain source limitations, and request owner approval for a small real-customer comprehension pilot.

Unknowns

1. Actual willingness to pay

2. Delivery and support effort

3. Acquisition cost

4. Checkout and refund terms

5. Whether the proposed artifact is useful in practice

Human approval boundaries

1. Approve intended buyer, capacity and offer constraints.

2. Approve any confidential data sent to a model provider.

3. Approve exact customer-research invitation, audience and data handling.

4. Approve actual price, payment/refund terms and fulfillment before paid testing.

5. Approve final copy and source rights before publication.

Failure modes

1. Correlated model assumptions masquerade as independent customer evidence.

2. An attractive promise exceeds delivery capacity.

3. A cited public example is misrepresented as BotCurrent test evidence.

4. A qualitative scenario is presented as a numerical forecast.

5. C$9 pricing attracts support needs that exceed contribution margin.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Failure

   Malformed or incomplete response

   Recovery

   Return the exact contract error to the same role once with original inputs. If still invalid, mark needs_data and request human inspection; never fabricate missing fields.

2. Failure

   Wrong draft version

   Recovery

   Discard stale review and rerun against the frozen version.

3. Failure

   Missing or overclaimed source

   Recovery

   Remove supported status, inspect the source and re-audit the affected claim.

4. Failure

   Repeated unsupported assertions across reviewers

   Recovery

   Trace them to actual evidence; repetition and simulated buyers are not corroboration.

5. Failure

   Conflicting recommendations

   Recovery

   Verify factual disputes, preserve uncertain alternatives for testing and send consequential tradeoffs to the owner.

6. Failure

   Unsupported claim, unresolved rights or unbuilt deliverable

   Recovery

   Block publication and payment tests until corrected and owner-approved.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Base desk test: use the supplied authored mock review and a frozen hypothetical offer. Any later five-person qualitative pilot is a separate owner-authorized activity, not part of base delivery or statistical validation.

Acceptance checks

1. All eight role contracts complete and reviews reference the correct version.

2. Unsupported testimonial or outcome claim generates a blocker.

3. Reviewers preserve uncertainty and source scope.

4. Base packet separates predicted objections from real customer evidence and leaves all outside research unexecuted; any later pilot needs its own predeclared checks.

Stop conditions

1. Unsupported material claim remains.

2. Missing rights, privacy approval or fulfillment readiness.

3. Owner-defined budget or support ceiling reached.

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

CAD

Items

1. Model usage, researcher time, delivery support and acquisition costs are unmeasured.

2. C$9 is a hypothetical product price, not a cost estimate or finalized recommendation.

Caveat

No workflow run-cost or customer economics data are available.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

1. Display CAD explicitly if the owner chooses Canadian pricing.

2. Verify applicable tax, consumer terms, privacy and payment requirements before launch; this kit provides no compliance certification.

Limits

1. Eight personas are roles within one proposed workflow, not eight cases.

2. Public conceptual inspirations do not endorse this kit.

3. No deployed platform compatibility or successful model behavior test established.

4. No BotCurrent sale or tested kit established.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested