The market is the first reviewer
The offer leaves the team thinking it's clear, and the first person to point out the gap is whoever already saw the paid ad.
All services
The ear · Oracle
Find out a campaign does not work before paying for it.
A simulated audience based on your brand responds to the offer, price, and ad before the money leaves. It is not an opinion survey or a real customer: it is a way to hear where your material does not explain itself.
TESTSOfferPriceAdSales page
THE OFFER BEING TESTED
"Pro Plan for R$ 399/month: 25,000 credits and all modules."
○Who approves the spend
Twenty-five thousand credits tells me nothing. How many analyses per month does that cover? I need the numbers before taking this to my boss.
◐Who wants to solve it today
I understand the price, but not what I do on day one. If I subscribe today, what appears on my screen tomorrow?
●Who will implement it
Does all modules include LogicaOS? The page says "all", the table says it does not. I will assume it does not and distrust the rest.
WHAT THE TRIAL RETURNSThe "credit" unit blocks the decision for 2 out of 3
Example of a trial. The seal next to each profile says what it is: ○ hypothesis approved by you, ◐ derived from data from your operation, ● backed by a conversation that existed. None of them is a real customer, and the platform never pretends it is.
The question nobody on your team asks is the one that kills the sale.
Whoever wrote the offer understands the offer. The trial exists to bring the misunderstanding back: the angle of someone who doesn't know, doesn't trust, or is in a hurry, and it's always one of these three that makes the customer close the tab.
What happens today
The campaign becomes a real test with real money.
Real research doesn't fit the deadline
Interviewing ten customers takes weeks and costs money. For a Tuesday decision, nobody does it, and the call gets made on a guess.
The internal meeting always agrees
Whoever is in the room shares the same context. The team's blind spot is, by definition, invisible to the team.
What you start to see
Where your material doesn't explain itself.
The trial doesn't return a score from zero to ten: it returns the objections, in the language of whoever objects, with the piece of material that generated each one. It's material to rewrite, not to frame.
EXAMPLE OF A SNAPSHOT
0
Distinct objections0%
Agreement across profiles0
Profiles in the trial0min
Time to resultDistinct objections
How many different reasons for refusal came up. Two people stalling for the same reason count once: what matters is the variety of the problem.
Each objection becomes a line in your FAQ
Agreement across profiles
When different profiles stall on the same point, the problem is with the material. When only one stalls, it's usually the profile.
Separates the real defect from the noise
Profiles in the trial
You approve which ones go in and with what seal. A profile without backing stays marked as a hypothesis until there's data to support it.
You know where each opinion came from
Time to result
Minutes, not weeks. That's what lets you trial before each campaign instead of once a quarter.
Fits the Tuesday decision
Inside
What the platform claims, and what it will never claim.
Audience simulation is territory where it's easy to sell illusion. We prefer to spell out exactly what this is, because that's the only way the result can be useful.
The persona is not a customer
It's an angle of questioning: a way of looking at your material and not understanding it. That's what it produces of value, and that's the only thing the platform claims.
nothing here is presented as market research
It's born from your brand, and you approve it
The platform reads what the company has already published and proposes the profiles. You review and approve, and approving here means "it's plausible for my business," never "it's real."
the button says approve as a working hypothesis
Each profile carries its seal
○ hypothesis, ◐ derived from data from your operation, ● backed by a message that really existed. The seal appears next to every response.
you read knowing the weight of each opinion
The material is yours, not the internet's
The trial responds based on what your company has published and what Collection brought in from the market. Not generic impressions about your industry.
the objection points to the passage that caused it
To settle the doubt
Four comparisons that settle this.
Research with real people is irreplaceable, A/B testing works, and the team meeting has value. The point is what fits before the decision, and how much it costs to get it wrong.
Real interviewTrial
What it returnsThe truth, with nuance Objection hypotheses, on the spot
TimelineWeeks Minutes
When to useFor a big, expensive decision Before every piece that goes live
From zero to the first snapshot
Three steps. The first test run in minutes.
013 MINUTES
The platform proposes the profiles
Based on what your company has already published and your sector. You read, cut what makes no sense and approve the rest as a hypothesis.
021 MINUTE
Paste the material
The offer, the price, the ad copy or the entire page: whatever is about to go live.
03RIGHT AWAY
Read the objections
Each one with the profile badge and the excerpt that caused it. What appears in more than one profile is what you rewrite first.
Inside the company
The same test run, three perspectives.
Rewrites the asset before publishing, with the real objection in front instead of a meeting guess.
Gets the most common sticking points already mapped, and the ready answer for each one.
Finds where the proposition is misread, which is almost always a product problem disguised as copy.
What comes out of this, concretely
01
The objection list
Ordered by how many profiles got stuck at the same point.
02
The excerpt at fault
Which part of your material generated each objection.
03
The suggested FAQ
The questions your material should answer and does not.
Where the alert arrives
The test result reaches the channel where the asset is being discussed, before anyone hits publish.
SlackEmailWhatsApp
View Connect How much it costs
You pay per interaction, not per seat.
The unit is one profile's response to your material. A test run with five profiles costs 15 interaction credits plus 15 for the verdict, and the same balance works across the other modules.
One profile interaction3 credits: one profile responding to one of your materials.
~5 credits
The test run verdict15 credits: a reading of what got stuck, with objections ordered.
~25 credits
Propose the profiles13 credits: a reading of your brand that generates profiles for your approval.
~40 credits
The free plan does not include Oracle. It starts with Hobby, with one thousand interactions per month: enough to test every asset before publishing, with room left over.
See all plansBefore you ask
What people usually want to know.
Does this replace market research?
No, and we do not sell it that way. Research with people returns the truth, with nuance, and is irreplaceable for major decisions. The test run returns objection hypotheses in minutes, which is what fits before an asset goes live on a Tuesday. They are different things, and using one in place of the other goes wrong both ways.
Where do the profiles come from?
From your brand: the platform reads what the company has published and the sector, then proposes them. You review, cut and approve, and the button says "approve as a working hypothesis" on purpose. Each profile carries a badge showing whether it is a hypothesis, derived from data from your operation or grounded in a real conversation.
Is the response just the model agreeing with me?
That is the central risk of this type of tool, which is why profiles are built as angles of NOT understanding: the person who approves the spend, the person in a hurry, the person who will implement it. A test run is good when it finds a sticking point, not when it praises. If it only praises, either the material is genuinely good or the profiles are poorly calibrated. In both cases, you see the badge and know the weight of what you read.
Can I use my real customers as a basis?
You can, and that is where the ◐ and ● badges appear: profiles derived from your service history carry more weight than hypotheses. What the platform does not do is pretend a profile has grounding when it does not.
Are test runs saved?
They are, and that is what lets you compare the August and September versions of the same offer. Like everything else, they are yours, encrypted with your key and exportable.
THE OTHER ORGANS
One ear needs the others.
A test run alone is manufactured opinion. Connected to the rest, it responds based on what the company actually published and what the market actually says.
THE OTHER ORGANS
No module works alone.
Each one solves a front, and all write to the same memory. See the others and how they fit with this one.