The question
What happens when a solution brief is examined by the people who would need to evaluate it, rather than only the audience its positioning is written to persuade?
Why I built it
Enterprise solution work taught me how much domain knowledge is carried in the questions people ask. I built AVIS — Adversarial Vertical Intelligence System — to explore that gap between a broad claim and the evidence a specific evaluator needs.
The approach
AVIS runs locally and uses healthcare buyer personas, including a CISO, a Clinical Informaticist, and a CIO, to interrogate public solution material through multiple turns. The experiment focuses on whether a brief supplies a specific answer or shifts back toward general positioning.
What I looked for
The evaluation examines patterns such as attributing a platform capability to a particular solution, answering a concrete question with configurable-platform language, or substituting a future demonstration for present evidence.
What I took from it
The useful output is a set of questions and evidence gaps to investigate further. It reinforces the value of starting from the evaluator’s context when preparing a solution story.
Limits
This is an exploratory evaluation of public material, not an audit of a vendor or proof that a capability is absent. A missing answer in marketing content cannot establish a product limitation. Model-generated judgments need human review; no benchmark accuracy or production impact is claimed.