How it works

From your question to a named decision in 24 hours.

The short version: research, drafting, and self-critique run automatically from public sources. Damyan reads the result, spot-checks the citations, and approves under his signature before anything ships. Every claim cites its source. Every report ends with a named next move — or a refund and a written explanation of why the evidence won’t carry one.

The long version is below.

Deep-Dive methodology

From brief to named next move.
24 hours. Every step accounted for.

  1. 01YouHour 0 · 5 min

    Send the brief.

    One paragraph. The decision in scope, the company, the question. No deck. No call. The form is four fields.

  2. 02QuintaraHour 1 · ~15 min

    Draft built from primary sources.

    Filings, archived pages, public datasets pulled into a working draft. Every claim tied to a primary URL. A quality check runs against a 10-item checklist before the draft reaches Damyan.

  3. 03DamyanHours 1–20 · ~5 min

    Damyan reads and approves.

    Reads the named move, spot-checks 3 random citations, scans the gap grid. Approve, send back, or refund. The approval under his signature is what you're paying for.

  4. 04InboxHour 24 · 09:00 CET

    Named next move on the cover.

    PDF + working files. The specific decision the evidence supports. If the evidence won't support one, we say so on the cover and refund.

Built fast, approved by a human

The system builds the brief. Damyan stands behind it.

The research engine compiles sources, drafts the synthesis, names the move, and runs a hostile self-critique — in minutes, at a depth that used to take human analysts weeks. What it can’t do is sign off. That part is the human work: reading the named move, deciding ship-or-regenerate, and standing behind the result with a refund if it doesn’t land. That accountability is what you’re paying for. Here’s the split, line by line.

The systemResearch, draft, self-critiqueDamyanReads · approves · signs · refunds
Pulls public filings, datasets, news, and archived pages — then ranks each source by how trustworthy it is.Reads the named move and spot-checks 3 random citations to make sure the artifact represents Quintara.
Builds the draft: competitor profiles, market summaries, the positioning gap, confidence ratings per claim.Reads the gap grid and asks: would a sceptical CFO buy this? If not, regenerates.
Writes the named next move, the anti-recommendation, and the part where it tells you what you were getting wrong.Applies the would-I-take-this-advice-myself test. If the move fails, regenerates. After 2 failed passes, refunds.
Runs a hostile self-critique against a 10-item quality checklist before Damyan sees a single page.Final approval. Three options on every brief: approve · regenerate · refund.
Composes the cover, the citations index, the working spreadsheet, and the delivery email.Approves the final artifact under signature. Stands behind the named move when the email goes out.

The gate:nothing ships until I approve it. The system runs its self-critique pass first; I then read the named move, scan the gap grid, and spot-check 3 random citations. If anything reads off, I send it back. If two passes don’t fix it, the brief refunds with a refusal cover. Read the full methodology →

The three checks every claim has to pass

  1. Source. Is this from a primary or otherwise credible source (filing, dataset, archived page, transcript) — or just a downstream summary? Downstream-only claims get cut.
  2. Relevance. Does this claim actually bear on the decision in the brief, or is it interesting-but-unused context? Unused context gets cut.
  3. Decision-usefulness. If the named next move on the cover page is contradicted by this claim, one of them changes. If both can stand, the claim earns its place.

If the surviving evidence won’t support a named next move, the cover page says so and the brief is refunded. A hedged report isn’t worth shipping.

What you receive

GET FREE DIAGNOSTIC →View sample report