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

Home / How It Works / Practical Walkthrough

From question to
decision-ready report

Follow a real strategic question through the full arbitrIQ process — step by step, with screenshots of each stage.

Step 1 · Input & Planning

Submit your question and documents

You frame a binary strategic question and upload supporting documents — financials, reports, market data, websites. The Director ingests this material, clarifies the question with you if needed, and generates a structured debate plan.

The plan decomposes your question into specific dimensions — each representing a distinct analytical axis that requires independent examination. For instance, a market-entry question might yield dimensions covering demand viability, operational feasibility, financial sustainability, and strategic timing.

The number of dimensions is configurable from 1 (focused triage) to 7 (comprehensive governance).

Director generates debate plan with dimensions
Step 2 · Iterative Contradiction

Agents debate each dimension

For each dimension, two independently-trained AI models are assigned opposing roles. The Advocate defends the proposition with evidence and structured reasoning. The Opposition attacks it — surfacing counter-evidence, challenging assumptions, and stress-testing projections.

The debate iterates for 2 to 10 turns (configurable). Each turn deepens: agents respond to prior arguments, narrow the space of genuine disagreement, and are forced to engage with the strongest form of the opposing position. Neither agent can agree to disagree.

Web grounding and calculation agents are embedded in the debate — not a separate step. The Director, Advocate, and Opposition all have access to a live web search module and a specialized calculation agent able to produce quantitative insights through Python programming. This ensures arguments are grounded in current and quantitative facts, not just training data and superficial considerations.

Structured debate between advocate and opposition
Step 3 · Evaluation

Independent scoring of each dimension

After all debate turns are complete, the Evaluator — a different model from both debaters — reviews the full exchange for each dimension. It assesses:

Argument quality — Did each side engage with the strongest form of the opposing position?

Evidence strength — Were claims supported by data, or by assertion?

Logical coherence — Were there internal contradictions, moved goalposts, or unaddressed rebuttals?

Residual uncertainty — What was genuinely resolved, and what remains open?

The Evaluator intervenes once per dimension — its assessment is based on the complete debate record, not on partial snapshots. This ensures that late-emerging concessions and arguments are properly weighted.

Evaluator scores and Director synthesizes
Step 4 · Synthesis

Decision-ready executive report

The Director synthesizes all dimension evaluations and the full debate transcripts into a comprehensive executive report. This is not a summary of opinions — it is a structured account of what survived challenge, what didn't, and what remains uncertain.

The report includes integrated scoring across dimensions, a clear recommendation with explicit conditions and caveats, and a map of residual uncertainties that the decision-maker should monitor.

The full debate transcript is available alongside the report — for audit, governance review, or deeper investigation of any dimension.

Decision-ready executive report

What you receive

Every analysis produces a complete evidentiary package — not just a recommendation.

Executive Report

Decision-ready synthesis with integrated scoring, recommendation, conditions, and caveats. Typically 4–8 pages.

Full Transcript

Complete debate record across all dimensions. Every argument, rebuttal, and evidence claim preserved for audit.

Dimension Scores

Evaluator assessments per dimension — argument quality, evidence strength, and what was resolved vs. uncertain.

Uncertainty Map

Explicit identification of what the analysis could not resolve — questions that require human judgment, additional data, or monitoring.

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

Ready to try it yourself?

Run your first strategic decision through structured contradiction.

Launch arbitrIQ See Pricing
Conceptual
Understand the methodology
Research foundations, agent architecture, multi-model diversity, and configurable governance.
Trust
Security, Governance & ROI
How arbitrIQ addresses enterprise requirements.
Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about the product, process, and implementation.