Questions are part of the record.

The Litmus Report gives consequential work a durable record: the assumptions, evidence, dissent, approvals, and outcomes that usually scatter across messages, documents, and meetings. It helps teams inspect the reasoning before hindsight edits it.

No. The product is designed around the reasoning behind a decision, not a task list or status dashboard. It can sit alongside the tools a team already uses while preserving the decision record that those tools rarely hold together.

It is for teams making choices with meaningful downstream effects: entering a market, changing a product portfolio, allocating capital, or reshaping an operating model. The first conversation is useful when one real decision is already in motion.

We review the short context you provide, confirm whether the decision is a fit, and bring a focused conversation about what should be captured, challenged, and monitored. A form submission does not commit either side to a pilot or engagement.

No. The opening form asks for your name, work email, company, and decision context. Keep the first message at the level you are authorized to share; we can discuss a safer next step before reviewing sensitive materials.

The pattern is designed to complement the systems where evidence and communication already live. The right integration boundary depends on your decision, workflow, and security requirements, so we define it during the conversation rather than promise a generic connector.

Dissent is recorded as a first-class part of the decision, with an owner, timestamp, and relationship to the recommendation. The goal is not to remove disagreement; it is to make the unresolved edge visible before it becomes a surprise.

No. The public examples are explicitly fictionalized demonstrations of the product pattern. They are not customer logos, testimonials, performance claims, or a substitute for evidence from your own context.

It helps teams connect assumptions to observable outcome signals; it does not guarantee a forecast or replace professional judgment. The value is a more inspectable decision and a clearer response when the evidence changes.

The public form is intentionally narrow: name, work email, company, and decision context. See the Privacy page for how that information is handled and the Security page for the current operating boundary.

Yes—bring the requirement before a pilot or upload. Security answers depend on the proposed scope, data, and operating environment. We will describe the current boundary plainly and identify what needs a separate product or service agreement.

The Terms page explains how to use the public site, review product materials, and begin a private conversation. If a question is specific to a proposed engagement, ask it before sending material.