Current workflow
The incumbent process, included only when it was actually observed.
Tech Diligence
Antidote tests economically material software workflows, measures what models and systems can actually do, and keeps capability, cost, defensibility, and unknowns on separate planes.
A model can pass a public benchmark and still fail the workflow. A product can show a lift and still lack a defensible asset. Vendor directories and composite leaderboards are not enough. Antidote keeps denominators, confidence, and claim status visible, and it will not invent a moat score to close the gap.
The same sequence as an engagement. The pages below stop where the evidence stops.
The workflow, cases, and scoring rules lock before the test.
Feasible comparisons run. Missing ones stay visible.
Capability, cost, defensibility, and unknowns do not mix.
Every claim keeps a status. A failed test stays open.
The client question selects the kind of memo. Capability, cost, and defensibility stay separate in each of them. Published benchmarks attach to the job, not the vendor. Two competing products in the same category share those benchmarks and differ in their company-specific findings.
Decision-relevant facts first. Provenance, configuration, and caveats stay expandable rather than hidden.
The incumbent process, included only when it was actually observed.
A generally available model with no product-specific setup.
A declared alternative with the same job, tools, and budget.
The system under review, tested with authorized access.
Included only when access and rights permit. Missing comparisons stay visible.
Diligence memos on software that already sits in buyer workflows, including products that are not model surfaces. Same planes, same comparison conditions, same claim labels. Public numbers stay cited to their source. These pages are not client work.