How it works
Argumont turns a decision into a sequence you can inspect. Each stage leaves a record: options, claims, evidence, risks, scores, a verdict, and later an outcome...
product
A verdict should survive a second attack.
The initial challenger questions the proposal during analysis. Appeal is different. Appeal independently assumes the verdict itself may be wrong.
Two different jobs
Challenge happens before the verdict. It tries to defeat the original proposal. Appeal happens after the verdict. It tries to defeat the conclusion.
The path
Initial decision → Verdict → Appeal → Uphold / Modify / Overturn. The appeal is stored beside the original record. It is not a rerun of the same chat.
Why this exists
A decision that cannot be reopened is a slogan. If the evidence was thin, appeal should be able to say so.
Related pages
Decision appeals
After a verdict, you can run an appeal that assumes the conclusion failed. That is a different job from asking the same analysis to try again with nicer words.
Outcomes & Calibration
A verdict is a forecast. An outcome is what happened. Argumont does not invent outcomes or publish fake case studies.
Adversarial reasoning
Adversarial reasoning is not being difficult in a meeting. It is assigning someone, or a model, the job of breaking the story so you do not ship a hole.
Product
Argumont is a system for making a decision inspectable. It does not return a single generated opinion and call the work finished.
Start a Decision
Argumont challenges assumptions, researches evidence, compares competing approaches, and produces an inspectable verdict. You keep the final decision.
Start a Decision