FI Fully Informed
Multi-model decision intelligence

Don't ask an AI.
Convene a panel.

Every angle. Every model. One informed decision. Frontier models answer your question, debate the others, and a judge delivers the verdict — with the disagreements shown, not hidden.

Start reasoning free → Watch a live debate ↓
$1 FREE CREDIT ON SIGNUP·NO SUBSCRIPTION·PAY-AS-YOU-GO·300+ MODELS
FI
The problem

A single model is confidently wrong — and it never tells you which times.

To be fully informed means possessing all the facts, context, and implications a decision requires. One model gives you one angle — fluent, plausible, and unchallenged. One voice can't disagree with itself.

  • No signal on when to trust it
  • Blind spots stay blind
  • You do the copy-paste circus across four tabs
SINGLE MODEL · ANSWER
Yes — Postgres SELECT ... FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED was introduced in version 8.2 and is fully ACID-safe for job queues. You can rely on it in any modern deployment.
Wrong. SKIP LOCKED landed in 9.5, not 8.2. Delivered with total confidence, zero hedging.
How it works

Fanout → Debate → Verdict

One prompt. The full parliament runs. You get a decision, not a guess.

01 · FANOUT

Every model answers independently

Your prompt goes out to the whole panel at once — GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek and more — no model sees another's work yet.

02 · DEBATE

They critique each other in structured debate

Each model reads the others' answers and pushes back — flagging errors, defending claims, conceding where they're wrong. Dissent noted.

03 · VERDICT

The moderator synthesises a verdict

A judge model weighs the debate and delivers one clear answer — plus a map of where the panel agreed, split, and what they all missed.

✓ VERDICT DELIVERED
Live debate · replay

Watch the panel reason in real time

NEW RUN · PARALLEL DEBATE
We run a Rails monolith at 40 engineers. Should we break it into microservices now?
GPT-5

Not yet. Extract a service only when a team boundary and a scaling limit both demand it. Premature at 40.

Claude

Agree — but invest now in module boundaries inside the monolith. That's the real prerequisite, not the split.

Gemini

Consider the org: if deploy contention is the pain, services help. Measure PR queue time before deciding.

Grok

Do it — monoliths rot at scale. Bite the bullet early while the codebase is still small enough to carve.

REBUTTAL

Claude → Grok: "Carve early" ignores that you'd be shipping distributed-systems overhead onto a team that hasn't yet drawn clean module lines. You'd inherit the coupling — now over a network.

Grok concedes: Fair. Boundaries first, then extract the noisy edges. Point taken.

⚖ THE VERDICT IS IN
92% CONSENSUS

No — not yet. Draw hard module boundaries inside the monolith first, instrument deploy-contention and PR-queue time, then extract only the services those metrics justify. The split is an outcome, not a starting move.

⌖ BLIND SPOTS · WHAT THEY ALL MISSED

No model asked about your data model — a shared, deeply-joined schema is the single biggest blocker to any future split, and it goes unmentioned by all four.

The comparison panel

The only AI product that tells you
what all the models missed

◆ KEY DIFFERENCES

Where the panel actually split. Grok pushed to extract now; the rest held that boundaries must come first. The disagreement is the signal.

◑ PARTIAL COVERAGE

Only Gemini raised measuring deploy contention before deciding. A correct point that three of four models never brought up.

✦ UNIQUE INSIGHTS

Claude's "module boundaries inside the monolith first" reframed the whole question — surfaced by one model, endorsed by the judge.

⌖ BLIND SPOTS

Not a single model asked about the data model — the real blocker. This is the box no single-model chat will ever show you.

Image mode

Image models compete.
An art director judges.

Same brief, multiple generators. A vision judge scores composition, prompt-fidelity and craft — then crowns a winner and tells you why.

BRIEF · "neon-noir ramen stall, rain, 35mm"
model A · 7.4
♛ WINNER model B · 9.1
model C · 6.8
Everything in the chamber

Debate modes

Parallel, sequential, or free conversation between the models.

🎭

Expert personas

Cast the panel as security auditors, skeptics, or domain experts.

🔍

Web search

Models ground their arguments in live sources, not stale memory.

📋

Deep research

Multi-step investigation with a plan you approve before it runs.

📎

File & vision input

Drop in docs, code, or images — the whole panel reads them.

300+ live models

Pick your panel from every frontier model, updated as they ship.

Pricing

Pay for what the models cost,
plus our cut. Nothing else.

No subscription. No seats. No tier table with forty ticks. Buy credits, run the panel, watch every cost hit your ledger — itemised, provider cost plus our markup.

$1 free on signup · top up from $5 · credits never expire
NO CARD TO START · AUTO TOP-UP OPTIONAL · CANCEL NOTHING
~$0.15

A panel verdict on a hard question

~$0.02

A quick two-model gut-check

~$0.40

Deep research with a full panel

Start reasoning free →
SIGN IN · GOOGLE · GITHUB · MICROSOFT PAYMENTS · STRIPE ✓ EVERY RUN'S COST ITEMISED
FI

Five models are waiting.

Open the floor. Submit your hardest question and let the panel earn the verdict — your first $1 of runs is on us.

Start reasoning free →