AdversarialCI — CogniGTM

01 four modes

Four modes. Same adversarial method.

Pick a mode based on the decision in front of you. Every mode runs the same underlying process — research the ground truth, argue for and against, judge on evidence.

modes // pick your decision

buyer which vendor should I pick?

seller how do I position against a specific competitor?

analyst neutral comparison, no declared winner

sourcing freshness check on the vendor intel we already have

02 the pipeline

Research. Argue. Judge.

Three phases with distinct model roles. Research grounds the facts. Argue takes each side hard. Judge decides on evidence — and has to cite where the evidence came from.

research argue judge

// research: rag over vendor sources · argue: adversarial personas per side · judge: cites evidence, no vibes

03 the report

A verdict you can defend.

Each session produces a structured report: winner card with confidence, per-vendor scorecard across the dimensions you actually care about, explicit tradeoffs, and next steps. Nothing hand-waved.

verdict · database vertical 3 vendors · buyer mode

// winner

Postgres 87% confidence

dimension	postgres	mysql	mongo
cost	8	9	6
performance	9	7	8
scalability	8	6	9
ecosystem	9	7	6

Postgres wins on ecosystem depth and flexibility
MySQL edges on cost if you stay small
MongoDB is stronger for doc-heavy workloads

04 where it fits

Not a benchmark. Not a G2 replacement.

A stress test against your specific situation. It uses your profile, your priorities, your competitors — not a generic score you scroll past. Built for the moments where a wrong call costs you a quarter.

Buyer teams Founders Competitive intel GTM leadership

Currently ships with three verticals — database, cloud, CRM — plus a per-vertical intake form. New verticals are configuration, not a rebuild.