The problem it solves
AI vendor proposals are written by people who have spent months preparing them. You have days — sometimes hours — to evaluate them.
In that gap, the assumptions go unchallenged. The optimistic projections don’t get compared to the failure cases that didn’t make the case study. The dependencies the proposal doesn’t mention — the data quality, the change management, the integration complexity — stay invisible.
Nobody in your organisation is in a position to read this critically. They’re under pressure to move fast, they don’t want to be seen as blocking progress, and they may not have the specific experience to identify what’s wrong with the logic.
What you send
Share the vendor proposal, internal roadmap, or investment memo. A brief note on what you’re trying to achieve and what’s already been decided helps but isn’t required.
That’s it. No intake call. No questionnaire. No setup.
What you receive
Within 48–72 hours, a written assessment covering: the assumptions the proposal depends on, the claims that deserve scrutiny, the risks that aren’t named, and the questions you should be asking before you commit.
Not a summary. A critical read.
Why this format
The fastest way to improve a decision is a fast, independent, critical read of the reasoning. This format is designed to be fast enough to actually influence the decision — not thorough enough to become another project.
"The vendor had months to prepare the proposal. You have days to decide. This is the independent read."
What you leave with
Not deliverables. Capabilities and clarity.
- The claims that deserve scrutiny The specific assertions in the proposal or roadmap that are either untested, optimistic, or contradict available evidence.
- The assumptions it depends on What the proposal requires to be true in order to deliver what it promises — including the parts not explicitly stated.
- The questions to ask before committing A short set of questions that should be answered before you sign — either internally or directed back to the vendor.
- A written verdict Clear overall assessment: proceed, negotiate, or walk away — with documented reasoning.
Good fit / not a fit
- Good fit: A vendor has sent you a proposal The pitch was compelling. The reference case looked relevant. But you want someone with no relationship to the vendor — and no stake in the outcome — to read it critically before you sign.
- Good fit: Your team produced an AI roadmap Internal teams have built the case for an AI initiative. Everyone believes in it. You want an outside read before it goes to the board for approval.
- Good fit: You have days, not weeks The decision window is short. You need a fast, structured critical read — not a two-week engagement. The Second Opinion is designed for time pressure.
- Not a fit: Not a fit Open-ended advisory or strategy sessions. The Second Opinion requires a specific document — a vendor proposal, investment memo, or strategic roadmap — as its subject.
Try it free first
Paste an AI offer or proposal and get a first assumption breakdown emailed back — a live demo of exactly this kind of analysis.
Run a free assumption check