Is our positioning work confidential?

Positioning content is never used to train any AI model. A pseudonymization layer replaces personal and organization identifiers with reversible tokens before the models see them, restoring them only in your result — automated detection reduces what reaches a provider, though it cannot guarantee elimination. Each deliberation leaves a timestamped record you can retrieve by ID. Retention periods and Zero Data Retention mode are set out in our Privacy Policy.

Does it replace the policy team or our monitoring service?

No. Monitoring tells you what moved; this argues what the move means and how the other side will frame it — with the reading that says your position is the weaker one preserved rather than dropped.

What does it cost to run on a live file?

The estimate is shown before the deliberation runs, reserved at launch, settled on completion, with any excess refunded, which suits a file that moves faster than a research budget cycle. Current rates are on the pricing page.

Who it's for / Public Affairs & Policy Teams

Pilot5.ai for Who?

Public Affairs & Policy Teams

A policy position is published once and argued forever.
Five independent AI models argue it first, in private.

For the policy lead drafting the stance. For the public affairs director who has to take it to the principal. For the analyst who owns the evidence base long after the paper has circulated.

Positions grounded in the primary texts: bills, rules, consultations. Arguments that survive the other side's best counsel. Confidentiality until the position is public. A record of the reasoning behind every stance.

A single AI gives one confident answer, in the same tone whether it is grounded or invented — and a model trained to agree with you validates your position paper instead of testing it. On a stance that carries your organization's name into the public record, that is a risk.

Step 1

The companion builds the brief with you.

The position and whose name goes on it. The bill, rule or consultation it answers. The jurisdictions in play. The opposition's best counterargument, and the date the record closes.

Step 2

Research and retrieval fire in parallel.

Federal Register · eCFR — US rulemaking and regulatory text
GAO — oversight reports and program evaluation
SEC — corporate filings and disclosure
DOJ — enforcement posture and legal position
EUR-Lex — EU legislation and consultation record
OECD — comparative policy analysis for multi-jurisdiction files

Every claim carries a provenance tag. [SOURCED] means traced to a verified reference. [INFERRED] means analytical inference — flagged automatically. Claims that cannot be traced are labelled as inference, never presented as fact.

Step 3

Five frontier AI perspectives deliberate, each through a calibrated mandate.

The Architect maps the position against the primary texts — which bill, which rule, which consultation it actually turns on.
The Strategist reads the jurisdictions, the timing and the public record this stance will have to live in.
The Engineer tests the evidence base — the figures, the claims and what cannot be traced to authority.
The Counsel surfaces exposure: what the paper commits you to, and where the other side's best counsel attacks.
The Contrarian sole mandate: argue this position fails in public, and name the line the opposition will quote back at you.

Five complete analyses. Five distinct angles. Not five versions of the same answer. Then they challenge each other, anonymously. Then they converge — and when one perspective refuses to, that dissent is preserved rather than averaged away.

Output:GO / PIVOT / NO GO / INSUFFICIENT BASIS · Confidence score · Decision matrix · Minority Report · Testable predictions.

Questions Pilot5.ai helps with

Does this draft stance hold up against the actual text of the rule, or only against our summary of it?
What is the strongest counterargument to this position, and can we answer it on the record?
Where is this paper exposed — which claim would we struggle to source if challenged?
Does the position read the same way in every jurisdiction it lands in?
What would make us regret publishing this, and would we have seen it coming?

Common questions

Is our positioning work confidential?: Positioning content is never used to train any AI model. A pseudonymization layer replaces personal and organization identifiers with reversible tokens before the models see them, restoring them only in your result — automated detection reduces what reaches a provider, though it cannot guarantee elimination. Each deliberation leaves a timestamped record you can retrieve by ID. Retention periods and Zero Data Retention mode are set out in our Privacy Policy.
Does it replace the policy team or our monitoring service?: No. Monitoring tells you what moved; this argues what the move means and how the other side will frame it — with the reading that says your position is the weaker one preserved rather than dropped.
What does it cost to run on a live file?: The estimate is shown before the deliberation runs, reserved at launch, settled on completion, with any excess refunded, which suits a file that moves faster than a research budget cycle. Current rates are on the pricing page.

Do not take our word for it. Run your own deliberation on a question you know well.

Read how five independent models handle it, then decide what it is worth.

Pilot5 delivers analysis. You deliver judgment.

Disagree to decide.

Start a Policy Deliberation

Read: AI decisions need an audit trail →·Read: the verified sources library →·Read: run it from your own AI →

Pilot5.ai produces AI-assisted analysis and does not provide legal, regulatory or lobbying advice. Outputs are research and decision-support only, and must be reviewed by a qualified professional before any position is published.