WorkForce

Private Beta — Invitation Only

You are the CEO now.

The business plan. The app. The novel. The patent.
You knew what you wanted to build. You didn't have the team.
Now you do.

S
P
R
F
A

One AI gives you an answer.

A WorkForce gives you the work.

→"Should we expand into the Japanese market?"
One AI

Japan represents a strong expansion opportunity. The Japanese SaaS market is projected to reach $19.4B by 2027, with growing enterprise demand for AI-powered tools.

Key advantages include high technology adoption rates, strong enterprise IT budgets, and a cultural emphasis on quality and verification — which aligns well with your trust-focused positioning.

I'd recommend starting with a localized landing page and targeting enterprise accounts through channel partners. The typical sales cycle is longer (6–9 months) but contract values tend to be 20–30% higher than US equivalents.

Consider prioritizing Japanese-language support and local data residency to meet compliance expectations. Overall, I'd rate this a strong opportunity worth pursuing in Q3.

0 research calls·1 perspective·No dissent
One WorkForce
Strategy4 searches
→ "Japan B2B SaaS market size 2026"
→ "AI trust verification competitors Japan"
TAM: $2.1B in AI verification segment. No incumbent. 18-month entry window before Fujitsu/NEC respond.
Finance3 searches
→ "Japan enterprise SaaS sales cycle length"
→ "USD JPY hedging cost B2B SaaS"
Entry cost: $340K (localization + compliance + channel). Payback: 14mo at base case. FX risk adds 8–12% variance.
Legal3 searches
→ "APPI Japan data residency requirements 2026"
→ "Japan cross-border data transfer regulations AI"
APPI requires explicit consent for cross-border transfer. Tokyo data center mandatory for enterprise. ISMAP certification expected.
Adversarial5 searchesdissents
→ "failed US SaaS Japan expansion case studies"
→ "Japan enterprise software localization depth required"
CHALLENGE: "Localized landing page" is insufficient. Japanese enterprise buyers require full-stack localization. 63% of US SaaS Japan entries fail in year 1.
Research6 searches
→ "Japan AI regulation framework 2026"
→ "Japanese enterprise procurement process requirements"
Validated: METI AI governance guidelines don't restrict verification tools. Enterprise procurement requires 3 reference accounts — chicken-and-egg problem.
⚠ Minority Report
Adversarial dissents from the majority. The financial model assumes US-equivalent conversion rates, but Japan enterprise sales cycles are 2.1× longer with 40% higher acquisition costs. Recommend a 6-month pilot with a single channel partner before full commitment.
Risk Register
highLocalization depth insufficient for enterprise buyers
mediumFX exposure on JPY-denominated contracts
highNo reference accounts for procurement qualification
mediumISMAP certification timeline: 4–6 months
21 research calls·5 departments·1 dissent·4 risks flagged
Proof

Real output. Not summaries.

The spec matches the architecture matches the design.
Seven departments produced these.
They're implementation-ready.

7departments
4providers
29research calls
3quality gates
UX DesignerVictor × Tufte
Claude
/* ── ASURIQ Simulation Design Tokens ──────────── */
/* Produced by UX dept (Visible Thinking Design) */

:root {
  --color-void:           #0A0B0F;
  --color-surface:        #111318;
  --color-surface-raised: #1A1D26;

  --state-idle:           #3D4260;
  --state-active:         #4F6EF7;
  --state-active-glow:    rgba(79,110,247,0.15);
  --state-complete:       #22C55E;
  --state-research:       #A78BFA;
  --state-gate:           #06B6D4;

  --dept-strategy:    #7B7BCC;
  --dept-finance:     #6BAA8A;
  --dept-legal:       #AA8B6B;
  --dept-risk:        #AA7B7B;
}

/* ── Behavioral Breathing ────────────────────────── */
@keyframes breathe {
  0%   { border-color: rgba(79,110,247,0.85); }
  35%  { border-color: rgba(79,110,247,1.0);  }
  100% { border-color: rgba(79,110,247,0.85); }
}
Real output — departments reference each other's work1 / 5
Assemble

A musicologist. A patent researcher. A CFO.
Whatever you need.

The experts you couldn't hire.
The team you couldn't afford.
The perspectives you didn't know existed.
Presets or from scratch.

ORG BUILDER
Product Manager
Drucker × Cagan
CLAUDE
UX Designer
Victor × Tufte
CLAUDE
Brand Director
Miyazaki × Miyake
CLAUDE
Cognitive Psych
Kahneman × Norman
GPT-4O
Frontend Eng
GPT-4O
Adversarial
Rams × Fukasawa
CLAUDE
Content
Orwell × Hemingway
CLAUDE
+
Your Dept
7 archetypes · 2 providersOr build from scratch →
How they think

Each department reasons differently. That's the point.

When your UX Designer thinks like Bret Victor,
it doesn't reference his work.
It researches his papers, applies his principles,
and produces specs that embody visible thinking.
The archetype shapes how the department reasons.

+
Create Your Own
define the methodology
They do their own homework

Your departments don't guess. They search.

● Adversarial Advocate (Rams) . 8 research calls, hit budget ceiling
→ "products that succeeded by radical simplification"
→ "prefers-reduced-motion CSS implementation 2024"
→ "Basecamp Hey simplified UX feature removal case study"
→ "AI loading screen skip button user research"
→ "Dieter Rams ten principles applied digital UX"
→ "onboarding skip rate forced animation bounce rate data"
⚠ Attempted 9th call. Blocked at budget ceiling.
What will you build?
"I need a business plan that would survive a VC grilling. Market sizing, financial model, risk register, go-to-market."
Solo Founder
"I wrote a novel and I can't afford an editorial team. Developmental edit, market positioning, query letter."
The Writer
"I want to build an app but I'm not a developer. Full PRD, architecture, database schema, design system."
Indie Builder
"I want to make a documentary about the disappearance of third places. Research, narrative arc, shot list."
Filmmaker
"I have an interview at Google on Thursday. Resume rewrite, behavioral prep, salary negotiation playbook."
Job Seeker
"I'm building a sci-fi universe. I need a physicist, sociologist, linguist, economist, and historian to make it real."
Worldbuilder
"I have 50,000 rows of messy customer data and no analyst. Clean it, segment it, find the churn patterns."
Data Person
"I'm producing an album and I need an A&R ear, a sound engineer's perspective, a marketing plan, and liner notes that aren't embarrassing."
Music Producer
"I have an idea for a better camping stove. Industrial design, materials spec, unit costs, patent search."
Inventor
"I want to design a board game about climate negotiations. Game mechanics, playtesting scenarios, art direction, manufacturing costs."
Game Designer
Three tiers of output

Advice. Analysis. Or the work itself.

Advisory
60–90 sec
Structured verdict with recommendation, confidence, risks, dissent, and kill number. The executive summary a board can act on.
Analytical
2–5 min
Evidence chains per department. Quantitative estimates. Minority reports. Cross-department tension maps. The due diligence you'd wait weeks for.
Productive
5–15 min
Departments produce the deliverables. PRDs with wireframes. Working TypeScript. CSS design systems. Test suites. Adversarial audits. The output IS the work.
Architecture

Organizational cybernetics,
not prompt engineering.

Built on Stafford Beer's Viable System Model.
Departments operate with information asymmetry.
A biomimetic immune system detects drift.
Quality gates evaluate coherence.
The system corrects itself.

Drift Detection
Z-score analysis catches misalignment
Gate Kickback
AI diagnoses failures, re-runs departments
Info Asymmetry
Prevents echo chambers between departments
Live Research
Smart-routed web search mid-analysis
Multi-Provider
Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek in one org
Constitutional
Org values injected into every prompt
Pricing

Professional output. Per-run pricing.

Credits are credits.
Use them on advisory verdicts, analytical deep-dives,
or productive deliverables. Your call.

What credits buy
Advisory1 credit
Structured verdict with recommendation, confidence, risks, and dissent.
Professional equivalent: $800–2,000
Analytical3 credits
Evidence chains, quantitative estimates, minority reports, cross-department tension.
Professional equivalent: $3,000–5,000
Productive5 credits
Implementation-ready deliverables. The spec, the code, the design system.
Professional equivalent: $6,000–10,000
Credit Packs
Pay as you go
$6–8/credit
Starter: 3 credits / $24
Builder: 10 credits / $70
Studio: 25 credits / $150
Credits don't expire
Start with 3 credits for $24
Pro
$79/month
30 credits/mo · $2.63/credit
30 credits/month
Use on any run type
Custom org templates
3× cheaper than packs
Max
$199/month
80 credits/mo · $2.49/credit
80 credits/month
Use on any run type
Custom org builder
Priority processing
Best per-credit value
Build an app in 10–15 phased sessions: ~$130–200 on Pro.
Same output from a dev shop: $5,000–15,000 minimum.
The difference

Your code generator has one opinion.
Your WorkForce has seven.

Lovable and Cursor give you code from a single perspective.
No one questions whether it scales.
No one asks if it serves your customers.
No one stress-tests the architecture.

WorkForce produces code too. But seven departments shaped it.
Strategy verified the approach. Finance modeled the cost.
Adversarial found the failure modes.
The code you get isn't just functional. It's considered.

Code generators
One model writes code. You prompt, it generates.
One perspective. No pushback. No cost model.
No one asks if it works for your users at scale.
You are the quality gate.
WorkForce
Multiple departments deliberate before a line ships.
Finance models the cost. Adversarial stress-tests.
Quality gates reject weak work.
Code that works for you, your customers, and at scale.

The idea you've been sitting on?
Your WorkForce is ready.

WorkForce is in private beta. Request an invitation to be among the first.