HomeWhy arbitrIQ How It Works Conceptual FrameworkPractical Walkthrough More Trust & SecurityFor ConsultantsPricingFAQ Get Started

Home / For Consultants

Your expertise is the differentiator.
Let arbitrIQ handle the heavy lifting.

arbitrIQ is built to augment strategic consultants, not replace them. It gives you structured contradiction at scale — so you can spend more time where humans are irreplaceable: judgment, relationships, and synthesis.

The consultant's challenge

Strategic consulting is under pressure from both sides: clients expect faster turnaround, but decision quality can't slip.

Higher leverage per engagement

Explore more scenarios per week, pressure-test assumptions, and arrive at stronger recommendations faster. arbitrIQ does in minutes what typically takes days of research and debate prep.

More defensible deliverables

Show clients what was challenged, what survived opposition, and what remains uncertain. The structured debate transcript becomes part of your governance documentation.

Faster pre-work and triage

Use arbitrIQ early to structure the problem, identify critical dimensions, and prioritise where humans should go deep. Less time on mechanical analysis, more on strategic insight.

Stronger client conversations

Bring both sides of the argument to the table. Fewer surprises, better governance, better alignment. Clients see the rigour behind your recommendations.

See it in action

A real analysis from a consulting engagement

"Should Nexora AG proceed with the acquisition of Luminos Biochem, Inc. at the proposed enterprise value of $485M?"

A consulting firm submitted financials, and strategic context. arbitrIQ examined 4 dimensions:

Dimension 1: Valuation Adequacy at $485M EV (Assess whether the proposed enterprise value is financially justified on standalone and synergy-adjusted bases using historical performance, DCF outputs, and public/transaction multiples, including whether Nexora is being asked to overpay relative to Luminos’ current earnings and cash flow)

Dimension 2: Quality and Durability of Luminos Standalone Business (Evaluate the strength and sustainability of Luminos’ underlying business model, including revenue growth, margin trajectory, customer concentration, contract visibility, capacity expansion, patent-backed technology, and exposure to operational or competitive downside risks)

Dimension 3: Realism and Executability of Synergies and Integration (Examine whether the identified cost and revenue synergies are credible, achievable within the stated timetable, and sufficient after integration costs and execution risk, including cultural, systems, commercial, manufacturing, and leadership-retention considerations)

Dimension 4: Financing Impact and Risk-Adjusted Strategic Attractiveness for Nexora (Analyze how the transaction affects Nexora’s balance sheet, leverage, interest burden, covenant headroom, and shareholder economics, while also weighing whether acquiring Luminos materially advances Nexora’s strategic position in bio-based specialty ingredients under current market and regulatory conditions)

Recommendation: Proceed only under staged entry with regulatory validation. Expansion not recommended under current leverage without capital buffer.

What the debate surfaced


🟦 1. Computed Metrics:

Implied forward EV/EBITDA: 9.0x (vs. 15.5x public comp median)

Standalone DCF at 9% WACC: $522.5M ($37M above ask)

Integration costs consume 85% of synergy NPV... but run-rate synergy value is 3.9x integration spend

Post-close leverage: 1.49x, interest coverage: 12.18x


🟥 2. Structured Opposition Raised:

WACC sensitivity: +100bp reduces DCF by $55-65M, potentially below ask

Revenue growth deceleration over four consecutive years

Leadership retention risk undermines synergy capture


🟨 3. Debate Scores:

D1 Valuation: Advocate 74 / Opposition 58

D2 Business Quality: Advocate 72 / Opposition 58

D3 Synergies: Advocate 62 / Opposition 68

D4 Financing & Strategy: Advocate 75 / Opposition 58


🟩 4. Final Decision Framing:

Decision: YES | Confidence: 72%

Proceed only with explicit conditions: retention packages, conservative synergy baseline, milestone-based integration governance

Deal is strategically compelling and financially supportable; principal risk is execution, not valuation

184K
Characters transcript
70
Pages of analysis
6
Page exec report

Nothing hidden. Read the full output yourself.

Executive Report (PDF)
Analysis Transcript (PDF)
Case study executive report

How consultants use arbitrIQ

A typical workflow from engagement to deliverable

1

Frame the client's strategic question

Translate the client's decision into a clear binary question. Upload supporting documents — financials, market data, internal reports, websites. The Director ingests this material, asks clarifying questions if needed, and generates a structured debate plan decomposed into analytical dimensions.

Director generates debate plan with dimensions
2

Run structured contradiction

For each dimension, independently-trained AI models are assigned opposing roles: Advocate defends the proposition, Opposition attacks it. The debate iterates for 2–10 turns, with live web search grounding arguments in current data. Neither agent can agree to disagree.

Structured debate between advocate and opposition
3

Review evaluation and synthesis

The Evaluator scores each dimension on argument quality, evidence strength, logical coherence, and residual uncertainty. The Director synthesises all evaluations into an executive report with a confidence-weighted recommendation, explicit caveats, and identified gaps.

Director synthesises final report
4

Layer your expertise

Use the arbitrIQ output as a rigorous foundation. Add your industry knowledge, client context, and strategic intuition. The debate transcript shows the analytical work — your synthesis shows your value. The tool challenges; the consultant interprets.

Consultant layers expertise on arbitrIQ output
5

Deliver with confidence

Present recommendations backed by structured evidence. Show clients what was challenged, what survived, and what remains uncertain. The full transcript, dimension scores, and executive report are governance-ready documentation — not just a slide deck.

Presenting to the board with governance documentation

What changes when you add structured contradiction

The difference is not in what you recommend — it's in what you can show. A recommendation backed by a 64-page adversarial debate, with scored dimensions and explicit uncertainty, is a fundamentally different deliverable than a slide deck with bullet points.

Your clients see that every assumption was challenged. Your boards see an audit trail. Your competitors can't replicate the depth without the architecture.

The division of labour

arbitrIQ generates structured contradiction. It surfaces arguments, counter-arguments, and blind spots across every dimension of a strategic question.

The synthesis, the judgment, the client relationship, the contextual knowledge that turns analysis into action — that's yours. That's where the value is, and it's where the value stays.

The consultant interprets. The tool challenges. The client decides.

Structured strategic debate

Go deeper

Practical Walkthrough
Follow a full analysis step by step
See how the Director, Advocate, Opposition, and Evaluator work together with screenshots.
Conceptual Framework
The methodology behind structured contradiction
Research foundations, agent architecture, and why multi-model diversity matters.
Trust & Security
Security architecture & governance
Application security details your clients' CISOs will want to see.

Augment your strategic practice

Run your first structured contradiction in minutes.

Launch arbitrIQ Enterprise & consulting plans

Analysis informs decisions. Governance protects them.