GOT HUMANS?
Every Document Deserves a Real Reader.
Today, AI writes documents in minutes and reads them in seconds. At first, this seems like a win for efficiency—faster workflows, reduced costs, and less reliance on internal resources. But over time, something critical begins to happen. When AI is responsible for both creating and reviewing documents, organizations gradually lose touch with the details and expertise that make their processes unique.
Within three to five years, this reliance on AI starts to fragment corporate knowledge. The documentation—once a reflection of the company’s real-world practices and expertise—shifts toward a generic middle ground. Instead of capturing what makes the organization distinct, documents become shaped by the same AI training algorithms that every competitor also uses. The result? Policies, processes, and strategies that look and feel interchangeable across industries.
This erosion of originality is compounded as employees increasingly rely on AI-generated summaries of documents that were themselves written by AI. Human managers, believing they are approving thoughtful work, may be basing their decisions on summaries that omit critical nuances or fail to reflect the actual content of the document. Over time, this disconnect grows, and the gap between what management believes it is approving and what is actually implemented widens—leading to misaligned strategies, unforeseen risks, and costly mistakes.
AI can only create and summarize what it has been trained on. As companies rely more on AI for innovation, that innovation starts to stall because new ideas—those created by people—are no longer being introduced. And since employees are no longer reading documents themselves, they lose the opportunity to syntopically process possibilities and generate unique insights. After a few years, innovation doesn’t just stall—it vanishes entirely. Worse, the people in the company no longer understand why or have the specialized expertise needed to glean new insights from their own processes.
This cascading effect has consequences far beyond the documents themselves. Innovation stalls as companies increasingly rely on standardized outputs instead of fostering internal creativity. Competitive advantages disappear as organizations become indistinguishable from one another. And as markets saturate with generic, AI-generated ideas, entire industries risk losing the innovation and progress that define success.
The AI Reliance Trap: A Timeline of Decline
Introduction of AI
Year 1
AI is introduced to assist with document creation and review, increasing efficiency and reducing workload.
Increasing Delegation to AI
Year 1-2
Humans delegate more tasks to AI, relying on it for both document writing and summarizing.
Over-Reliance on AI
Year 3
AI takes over both writing and reviewing documents, leading to reduced human engagement and oversight.
Fragmentation of Corporate Knowledge
Year 3-4
Documents shift toward generic AI training data, losing company-specific expertise and insights.
Disconnect Between Leadership and Content
Year 4
Decisions are made based on AI-generated summaries, leading to a gap between what leadership believes and what’s actually in the documents.
Stalling Innovation
Year 4-5
AI-generated ideas dominate, while human creativity and synthesis are sidelined, causing innovation to stall.
Vanishing Expertise
Year 5
Employees lose the skills and expertise to generate unique insights, leaving organizations unable to understand or fix the decline.
Generic and Stagnant Organizations
Year 5+
Companies lose their competitive advantage and markets stagnate, with little innovation or differentiation remaining.
The Solution: Preventing the Decline
How peer review safeguards expertise, clarity, and innovation.
The risks of over-reliance on AI in document creation and review are clear, but they’re not inevitable. Organizations that act decisively can prevent the decline and position themselves as leaders. The solution? Reintroducing the one thing AI cannot replace: human expertise. Our rigorous, human-led review process safeguards your documents, preserving expertise, ensuring clarity, and fostering innovation. Here’s how this approach works:
The entire world is navigating the front edge of the AI revolution. For most organizations, the challenge is not rebuilding knowledge but preserving what makes them unique before it starts to erode. Over time, without intervention, operational knowledge shifts toward generic practices driven by AI training algorithms rather than the specifics of your company’s expertise. External peer review provides a crucial safeguard, offering an unbiased perspective that ensures your documentation continues to reflect your unique operations. This approach is comparable to academic peer review, where independent experts validate research to uphold quality and integrity. By identifying gaps, refining clarity, and reinforcing alignment with organizational goals, peer review ensures your knowledge base remains intact.
With peer review, your documents don’t just preserve operational knowledge—they also empower your team by maintaining a direct connection to your company’s unique practices. As AI usage grows, this proactive strategy becomes an essential tool for preserving the expertise that sets your organization apart from the competition.
Documentation becomes generic, reflecting AI training algorithms instead of unique operational knowledge.
Preserves the expertise embedded in your documents, maintaining alignment with real-world practices.
External peer review identifies gaps, ensures clarity, and reinforces alignment with organizational goals.
Documentation lies at the heart of decision-making, yet AI-generated summaries often leave leadership operating in the dark. Key details are overlooked, and ambiguities creep in, making it easy for misaligned strategies to emerge. A human-led review process restores clarity and ensures that leadership can confidently approve decisions based on complete understanding.
Peer review goes beyond surface-level corrections. Our reviewers analyze intent, structure, and alignment with goals, ensuring that the final document is clear, consistent, and actionable. This process reduces risks by providing leaders with the information they need to make informed decisions while maintaining accountability throughout the organization.
Leaders approve decisions based on incomplete AI summaries, leading to misaligned strategies.
Guarantees decisions are grounded in clear, well-understood documents that reflect leadership’s intent.
Comprehensive reviews ensure alignment, resolve ambiguities, and clarify intent for all stakeholders.
AI-generated content is, by definition, derivative. It can only replicate patterns and data from its training, meaning it struggles to generate genuinely creative or forward-thinking ideas. Peer review introduces human insight, connecting ideas and uncovering opportunities that drive innovation and strategic advantage.
With human reviewers, your documentation doesn’t just serve as a record—it becomes a catalyst for discovery and creativity. Our experts identify new possibilities, create actionable solutions, and help you turn your content into a tool for growth and innovation.
AI-generated content stalls creativity, limiting the ability to generate new growth opportunities.
Human reviewers uncover hidden connections and insights, driving innovation and differentiation.
Reviewers connect ideas and generate new solutions, transforming documentation into a strategic asset.
The drift into generic, middle-ground documentation isn’t an overnight phenomenon—it’s a slow process that occurs when organizations rely too heavily on AI for both writing and reviewing. Over time, this drift erodes the specificity and uniqueness that define your company’s operational strengths.
Peer review acts as a safeguard against fragmentation by anchoring content in your organization’s real-world practices. This ensures that your documentation remains precise, accurate, and directly tied to your unique capabilities, preserving your competitive edge.
Documentation drifts into generic templates, disconnecting from actual practices and reducing competitive strength.
Keeps documentation precise and connected to the organization’s unique strengths.
Anchors content in your organization’s real-world capabilities, preventing drift and ensuring consistency.
The decline described in the timeline isn’t a distant possibility—it’s already happening in companies across industries. Organizations that act now can avoid becoming generic and stagnant by integrating peer review into their workflows, ensuring their documentation remains an asset rather than a liability.
Peer review doesn’t just mitigate risks—it safeguards your ability to innovate and thrive in a rapidly changing landscape. By preserving clarity, adaptability, and alignment, your organization can confidently navigate the future and maintain its competitive edge.
Loss of competitive edge and stagnation in a rapidly evolving market.
Maintains adaptability and innovation, securing long-term success.
Human-led peer review ensures clarity, adaptability, and alignment with future goals.
Understanding Peer Review
Peer review, at its core, is a systematic evaluation process where experts assess the work of their peers. In this context, it means subjecting corporate documents to rigorous examination by skilled reviewers who provide an external, unbiased perspective. The goal is to ensure the content’s quality, relevance, and alignment with the organization’s goals. Peer review isn’t about catching minor errors—it’s about engaging deeply with the material to verify its coherence and impact. This process ensures that documentation remains clear, consistent, and actionable, even in the face of evolving challenges.
Academia provides one of the best examples of peer review’s power. In a field characterized by constant innovation and shifting knowledge, peer review has become essential for maintaining credibility and consistency. By having subject matter experts critically evaluate research, academia ensures that new information is validated, gaps are addressed, and clarity is upheld. This process doesn’t just safeguard the integrity of individual works—it helps manage vast volumes of shifting information by creating a system where expertise and accountability are embedded at every level. This adaptability and precision make peer review indispensable for navigating complexity, whether in research or corporate operations.
Our Unique Document Review Framework
A syntopical integration of proven methodologies to deliver insights that drive innovation and counter organizational decline.
Organizations today face a looming risk: the slow erosion of clarity, alignment, and innovation in their documentation. As reliance on AI increases and internal expertise fragments, documents often lose their focus, fail to address their intended jobs, and neglect the user insights that drive real-world success. This decline isn’t inevitable, but reversing it requires a fresh approach—one that goes beyond surface-level reviews to fundamentally realign documentation with organizational goals and market demands.
Our document review framework is a direct response to this challenge. By synthesizing the philosophies of W. Edward Deming, Mortimer J. Adler, Clayton Christensen, and Eric von Hippel, we provide reviews that don’t just evaluate documents—they transform them. Our approach delivers insights organizations simply cannot achieve on their own, bridging gaps in focus, alignment, and user-driven innovation. This is about more than improving individual documents; it’s about reshaping how organizations think about and use their documentation as a strategic asset.
The Holistic Oil Check: Ensuring Your Documentation Drives Innovation
In today’s fast-moving technological landscape, your IT documentation is more than just a record—it’s the blueprint for innovation, alignment, and success. But when was the last time your documents were truly reviewed through a lens that ensures they’re doing the jobs they were meant to do? That’s where we come in.
By integrating four transformative frameworks—Deming’s focus on outcomes, Adler’s syntopical analysis, Christensen’s Jobs to Be Done, and von Hippel’s user-centric innovation—we offer what can only be described as a holistic oil check for your IT documentation. Just like routine maintenance prevents your car from breaking down, our reviews ensure your documentation stays aligned, relevant, and ready to drive your organization forward.
Why is this essential? Because without this level of scrutiny, your documents risk becoming stale, fragmented, or even counterproductive. A deployment guide that confuses its audience, a security schema that ignores end-user realities, or an architecture design that overemphasizes limitations—these aren’t just minor issues. They’re cracks in the foundation of your organization’s innovation. And as these cracks grow, so does the risk of decline, inefficiency, and lost opportunities.
Our approach ensures that doesn’t happen. By focusing on outcomes, aligning documents with their intended jobs, embedding user-driven insights, and comparing strategies against broader contexts, we don’t just review documents. We transform them into assets that actively fuel your success.
Think of our service as an innovative oil check for your organization’s knowledge engine. We don’t just top up fluids or tighten bolts; we reimagine how your documentation powers your operations, ensuring it’s optimized, forward-thinking, and built for growth. In a world where innovation is the competitive edge, this isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s the safeguard your organization needs to thrive.
Adopting our approach is more than a solution—it’s a strategic investment in your future. With us, you’re not just preventing decline; you’re actively building a foundation for clarity, alignment, and innovation. Let’s make your documentation the asset it was always meant to be.
W. Edward Deming’s focus on outcomes is foundational to our framework. His philosophy reminds us that the things you focus on are the things you tend to get. Yet many organizations unintentionally focus their documentation on problems, risks, or past failures, reinforcing these outcomes. By contrast, documents that emphasize solutions, innovation, and strategic goals set the stage for forward-looking action and growth.
Our reviews evaluate whether documents align with desired outcomes or risk perpetuating inefficiencies. For example, a high-level IT design that overemphasizes constraints may stifle creativity, while one that focuses on opportunities for scalability and integration fosters innovation. This shift in focus is not just cosmetic—it reshapes how teams approach challenges, creating a culture that prioritizes progress over stagnation.
Key Principle
Focus determines outcomes. Documents that highlight solutions and progress drive innovation, while those fixated on problems reinforce stagnation.
Practical Example
Reframe metrics from "number of defects reported" to "number of issues resolved on the first call," focusing on resolution rather than problems.
Framework Integration
Ensure every document fosters a forward-looking culture by directing attention toward innovation, solutions, and outcomes.
Mortimer J. Adler’s syntopical analysis enables us to uncover deeper insights by comparing documents to internal standards, external references, and strategic goals. This approach ensures that documents don’t just stand alone—they become part of a larger organizational narrative that drives clarity and innovation.
By applying syntopical analysis, we evaluate how IT documents, such as multi-cloud architectures or security schemas, align with broader industry trends and organizational needs. For example, comparing a roadmap to competitor strategies or market benchmarks can reveal missed opportunities or critical gaps. This process transforms documents from static records into dynamic tools for strategic alignment and growth.
Key Principle
Comparative analysis generates insights by identifying patterns, contradictions, and opportunities across multiple documents or contexts.
Practical Example
Analyze multi-cloud architecture designs against industry standards to identify gaps in scalability or integration capabilities.
Framework Integration
Ensure documents align with organizational goals and industry trends, fostering innovation through strategic synthesis.
Clayton Christensen’s Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) ensures that documents fulfill their intended purpose. Misalignment occurs when a document tries to serve too many audiences or fails to address the specific "job" it was hired to do. This undermines its effectiveness and creates confusion.
Our reviews focus on clarifying and aligning the document’s purpose. For instance, a deployment plan should provide clear, actionable steps for implementation, not overwhelm stakeholders with extraneous information. By aligning documents with their specific jobs, we help organizations eliminate inefficiencies and maximize impact.
Key Principle
Documents are "hired" to perform specific jobs. Misalignment reduces effectiveness and creates inefficiencies.
Practical Example
Ensure deployment guides focus on implementation success, eliminating unnecessary complexity or ambiguity.
Framework Integration
Align documents with their intended jobs to eliminate inefficiencies and maximize clarity and impact.
Eric von Hippel’s user-centric innovation ensures that IT documents incorporate real-world insights from end-users. Many organizations fail to reflect the needs of their most advanced or demanding users, missing opportunities for improvement and innovation.
Our reviews identify and integrate lead user perspectives into IT documents, ensuring they address practical challenges and unlock new possibilities. For example, incorporating feedback from developers into API specifications can significantly enhance usability and adoption.
Key Principle
Documents should reflect user-driven insights to remain relevant, actionable, and innovative.
Practical Example
Incorporate feedback from power users into API specifications to improve clarity and usability.
Framework Integration
Embed user-driven insights into IT documents to drive innovation and adoption.
Peer Review Service Levels
Adapting Mortimer J. Adler's syntopical analysis process into three tiers of IT document evaluation, from basic to advanced.
Mortimer J. Adler’s syntopical analysis process provides a systematic way to critically engage with and evaluate complex texts. We’ve adapted this process into three distinct service levels tailored specifically to IT documentation. These levels ensure that your architectures, designs, and schemas are not only accurate but strategically aligned and forward-thinking.
Each level builds upon Adler’s principles, starting with understanding the document itself, then progressing to evaluating its internal consistency and alignment with broader goals, and finally synthesizing its ideas within a larger organizational or market framework. Whether you need a foundational clarity check or a comparative analysis of competing strategies, these tiers ensure your IT documents support decision-making with precision and innovation.
Level 1: Foundational Review
This level ensures your IT documents are clear, coherent, and professionally structured. Reviewers focus on grammar, formatting, and structural integrity, ensuring that the document communicates effectively and without ambiguity. For example, a foundational review of a low-level design might verify consistent use of naming conventions, properly annotated diagrams, and accurate technical terminology.
Process: Reviewers read through the document to identify inconsistencies, errors, or formatting issues. They ensure technical terms are accurate and diagrams are labeled correctly. For example, in a security schema, we check for clear definitions of encryption standards and access protocols.
Best For: Routine IT documents such as initial drafts of system architectures, deployment guides, or API specifications where foundational accuracy is key.
Level 2: Analytical Review
This level dives deeper into ensuring the document aligns with organizational goals and technical requirements. Reviewers evaluate internal consistency and completeness, checking for alignment with existing standards and strategies. For example, an analytical review of a high-level design would ensure its alignment with organizational scalability goals and compatibility with established infrastructure.
Process: Reviewers examine the document for logical flow, alignment with IT frameworks, and adherence to industry standards. For a security schema, this could involve verifying that protocols comply with compliance requirements such as GDPR or ISO 27001, or ensuring authentication methods are consistently applied throughout.
Best For: Strategic IT documents such as high-level designs, policy documents, or technical project plans where alignment with organizational goals is critical.
Level 3: Syntopical Review
At the advanced level, reviewers apply a syntopical approach, comparing the document to other provided internal or external references and synthesizing its ideas within broader frameworks. For example, a syntopical review of a multi-cloud architecture would assess its compatibility with current systems while benchmarking against industry trends and competitor strategies.
Process: Reviewers analyze the document alongside related materials, identifying patterns, contradictions, and opportunities. For a low-level design, this could involve comparing proposed configurations to known performance benchmarks, or evaluating a security schema against evolving threat models to ensure forward compatibility.
Best For: High-stakes IT documents such as strategic roadmaps, advanced architecture proposals, or white papers requiring deep comparative analysis and actionable insights.
Evaluating Document Focus
Applying W. Edward Deming’s philosophy to ensure documents drive innovation and positive outcomes.
One of the most critical aspects of document review—and often the most overlooked—is evaluating its focus. W. Edward Deming emphasized that the things you focus on are the things you tend to get. This principle applies profoundly to how organizations craft and use documentation. When documents are structured to focus on problems, organizations unintentionally perpetuate a problem-oriented culture. Conversely, when documents focus on solutions, achievements, and innovation, they help shape an organization’s culture to align with those outcomes.
At all service levels, we review documents not just for their technical accuracy or alignment with goals but also for their focus. This means assessing whether the document directs attention toward desired outcomes or unintentionally reinforces challenges. For example, consider a metric tracking the number of defects reported in an application. While this provides visibility into issues, it places the organizational lens squarely on problems. Reframing this same metric as “number of defects resolved on the first call to the help desk” maintains visibility into challenges but shifts the focus toward successful resolutions. This subtle change influences behavior and drives better performance outcomes.
Evaluating focus goes beyond metrics. It applies to the language, structure, and framing of the document itself. For instance, a high-level IT design that emphasizes system limitations without highlighting scalability opportunities may inadvertently constrain innovation. Similarly, a deployment plan that prioritizes potential risks over milestones achieved could dampen team morale and momentum. Our reviewers analyze these aspects to ensure that documents emphasize strengths, progress, and actionable solutions while maintaining transparency about challenges.
Deming’s philosophy reminds us that focus shapes action. A document that highlights innovation, progress, and potential sets a tone for creative problem-solving and continuous improvement. By contrast, a document overly centered on failures, risks, or constraints risks fostering a culture of blame or stagnation. Our review process ensures that every document we touch supports a forward-looking, solution-oriented culture. This approach doesn’t just improve individual documents; it helps organizations develop habits that drive long-term success and innovation.
Ensuring Alignment: The Job the Document Is Doing
Applying the Jobs to Be Done framework to evaluate whether documents fulfill their intended purpose.
Every document exists to fulfill a purpose, or "job." Whether it's a high-level IT design, a deployment guide, or a security schema, the document is "hired" by its stakeholders to perform a specific task—communicating a vision, detailing a process, or solving a problem. The Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) framework, popularized by Clayton Christensen, provides a powerful lens for evaluating whether a document aligns with its intended purpose and achieves the outcomes stakeholders expect.
In document review, ensuring alignment means analyzing whether the document’s structure, content, and focus support the job it was created to perform. For example, a deployment plan is "hired" to guide teams in implementing a system with minimal disruption. If the plan lacks clarity or omits key considerations, it fails in its job, regardless of its technical accuracy. Similarly, a security schema is "hired" to define safeguards against threats—if it spends too much time justifying a single tool without addressing broader risks, its alignment with its job is compromised.
Our review process evaluates alignment at multiple levels. First, we identify the document’s primary job. Is it guiding implementation, setting strategy, or providing operational support? Next, we assess whether the document’s structure and content are optimized for that job. This includes checking for clarity, focus, and alignment with stakeholder needs. For example, a system architecture document should clearly communicate integration points and scalability considerations to stakeholders, not just technical specifications.
Misalignment often arises when documents try to do too much or cater to conflicting audiences. A single document that attempts to serve developers, project managers, and executive leadership simultaneously may dilute its effectiveness. We help identify these issues and recommend ways to streamline or split content, ensuring that each document remains laser-focused on its intended purpose.
By applying the JTBD framework, we ensure that every document in your IT ecosystem contributes meaningfully to its intended outcomes. Whether it’s helping a team deploy a new system, aligning stakeholders on a strategic vision, or detailing a process for auditors, our reviews ensure that your documents are doing the jobs they were hired to do—and doing them well.
Incorporating User-Centric Insights
Leveraging Eric von Hippel’s philosophy to ensure IT documents reflect real-world user needs and drive innovation.
Eric von Hippel’s user-centric innovation model emphasizes the importance of leveraging insights from "lead users"—those who face challenges ahead of the general market and develop innovative solutions to meet their needs. In the context of IT document review, this philosophy underscores the need to evaluate whether documents align with real-world user experiences and facilitate actionable innovation.
IT documents, such as API specifications, deployment guides, and user workflows, often serve as the bridge between a system’s design and its practical use. If these documents fail to reflect the challenges, needs, or insights of end-users, they risk creating inefficiencies, misaligned expectations, or even barriers to adoption. For example, an API specification might be technically accurate but lack clarity in how developers can effectively integrate it, leading to frustration and delays. A deployment plan might outline steps for installation without considering how end-users interact with the system post-deployment, missing critical usability issues.
Our review process integrates von Hippel’s principles by actively assessing whether documents incorporate user-centric perspectives. For instance, we analyze whether a system architecture document reflects feedback from power users who will push the system’s limits or whether a high-level design anticipates workflows based on real-world scenarios. This involves identifying gaps where user insights could enhance functionality or usability and recommending actionable changes.
A critical aspect of this approach is identifying "lead user" contributions within the organization or its ecosystem. These might include advanced users who have already adapted existing systems creatively or stakeholders who are deeply familiar with operational pain points. By ensuring IT documents integrate these perspectives, we help organizations design systems that not only meet today’s needs but also anticipate future demands, driving innovation and adoption.
By applying von Hippel’s user-centric lens, we ensure that IT documents are not just tools for communication but catalysts for meaningful innovation. Whether reviewing a security schema for usability by IT teams or a roadmap for its clarity in addressing user needs, we help organizations embed user-driven insights into every layer of their documentation. This approach fosters solutions that are practical, impactful, and future-ready.
Comprehensive Review Levels Comparison
Explore the in-depth features provided at each level of our document review process, demonstrating the progression from foundational to advanced insights.
| Feature | Level 1: Foundational | Level 2: Analytical | Level 3: Syntopical |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grammar, spelling, and formatting checks | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Ensuring logical flow and readability | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Internal consistency and cohesion | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Clear section headers and linked references | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Accuracy of terminology and definitions | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Document alignment with its intended purpose (JTBD) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Basic focus evaluation for solution-oriented language (Deming) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Clarity for target audience | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Streamlining extraneous or irrelevant content | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Highlighting alignment with organizational values | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Ensuring usability for the intended audience (von Hippel) | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Identifying lead user feedback opportunities | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Recommending user-driven enhancements | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Integrating practical use cases into technical designs | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Evaluating user-centric framing in workflows | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Advanced focus evaluation for outcome alignment (Deming) | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Gap analysis for internal consistencies | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Ensuring compliance with organizational goals | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Benchmarking against industry best practices | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Providing actionable feedback for strategic improvements | ✔ | ✔ | |
| Applying comparative analysis (Adler) | ✔ | ||
| Synthesizing ideas across multiple documents | ✔ | ||
| Evaluating alignment with external standards | ✔ | ||
| Identifying strategic opportunities through synthesis | ✔ | ||
| Highlighting contradictions or risks in strategies | ✔ | ||
| Ensuring forward-looking innovation alignment | ✔ | ||
| Recommendations for optimizing strategic goals | ✔ | ||
| Identifying long-term risks and opportunities | ✔ | ||
| Generating actionable insights for leadership | ✔ | ||
| Embedding innovation opportunities within documentation | ✔ |
Pricing: Scalable and Transparent
Our pricing model reflects the value we bring at every level of review, offering simple, scalable, and predictable fees for your IT documentation needs.
How It Works
We charge a base fee of $250 per document, plus a per-page fee based on the selected level of review. The per-page fee scales with the depth of insight provided:
- Level 1 (Foundational): $1 per page, rounded (up or down) to the nearest 10 pages.
- Level 2 (Analytical): $3 per page, rounded (up or down) to the nearest 10 pages.
- Level 3 (Syntopical): $6 per page, rounded (up or down) to the nearest 10 pages.
Pricing Table
| Document Length | Level 1: Foundational | Level 2: Analytical | Level 3: Syntopical |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 Pages | $280 | $340 | $430 |
| 70 Pages | $320 | $460 | $670 |
| 120 Pages | $370 | $610 | $970 |
Examples of Pricing in Action
Here are detailed examples to demonstrate how our pricing applies across different levels and document lengths:
- Short Document (30 Pages):
- Level 1: $250 + ($30 × $1) = $280
- Level 2: $250 + ($30 × $3) = $340
- Level 3: $250 + ($30 × $6) = $430
- Mid-Length Document (70 Pages):
- Level 1: $250 + ($70 × $1) = $320
- Level 2: $250 + ($70 × $3) = $460
- Level 3: $250 + ($70 × $6) = $670
- Long Document (120 Pages):
- Level 1: $250 + ($120 × $1) = $370
- Level 2: $250 + ($120 × $3) = $610
- Level 3: $250 + ($120 × $6) = $970
Additional Options
We also offer flexible pricing adjustments based on your specific needs:
- Volume Discounts: Discounts of 5–10% for batch submissions of 5+ documents.
- Rush Turnaround: Expedited reviews (48-hour delivery) available for an additional 20–50% surcharge.
- Complexity Adjustment: Highly technical or proprietary documents may incur a 10–30% complexity premium.
Why This Model Works
Our pricing model balances affordability with the high value of our services:
- Predictable: Clear, transparent pricing that clients can easily calculate.
- Scalable: Fees scale with document length and review depth.
- Competitive: Positioned between basic AI tools and high-end consulting, offering unmatched human expertise at a fair price.
Ready to Get Started?
Use our simple pricing calculator to estimate your costs based on the document length and review level you need. For custom projects or volume submissions, contact us for a tailored quote.