suggestibility.ai
AI DOCUMENT REVIEW

What an AI review board actually returns

Every review below is real output from a suggestibility.ai board, shown unedited. The documents themselves are fictional; the findings, consensus, dissent and scores are not.

What can be reviewed

Anything where a structured second opinion before you commit is worth having. Technical artifacts — architecture decision records, technical designs, API and integration proposals, threat models, incident postmortems. And non-technical ones — security and privacy policies, operational standards, governance documents, and business plans that carry regulatory exposure.

The board is picked for the artifact: a threat model convenes different expert perspectives than a campaign plan. Three of these samples show the same document reviewed by two different board sizes, which is the clearest way to see what a larger board buys you.

Read either register. Every sample carries the full technical review and a second, plainer view of the same findings. Boards of seven return an Executive summary; smaller boards return Plain English. Toggle between them at the top of any sample.

Architecture decision

Architecture decisionADR-014: Move session state from signed cookies to Redis

A platform team proposes moving sessions out of signed cookies. Three reviewers.

3 reviewers · scored 45/100 · Major issuesArchitecture decisionADR-014: Move session state from signed cookies to Redis

The same ADR, reviewed by five. Compare what the larger board found.

5 reviewers · scored 35/100 · Major issues

Security threat model

Security threat modelThreat Model: Customer Document Upload

A STRIDE threat model for a claims-portal upload path. Seven reviewers.

7 reviewers · scored 58/100 · Needs work

Security policy

Security policyPrivileged Access Standard for Client Environments

An MSP's privileged-access standard, reviewed by three.

3 reviewers · scored 72/100 · Solid — minor issuesSecurity policyPrivileged Access Standard for Client Environments

The same standard at seven reviewers — and a very different score.

7 reviewers · scored 18/100 · Critical concerns

Integration design

Integration designPayment Processor Migration

A dual-run migration between payment processors. Seven reviewers.

7 reviewers · scored 42/100 · Major issues

Operations policy

Operations policyEngineering On-Call Policy

An on-call rotation policy, reviewed as an operational document.

7 reviewers · scored 28/100 · Major issues

Technical design

Technical designDesign Doc: Offline-First Sync for Fieldnote Mobile

Conflict resolution for an offline-first mobile client.

7 reviewers · scored 35/100 · Major issues

Campaign plan · privacy exposure

Campaign plan · privacy exposureCampaign Direction Recommendation

A marketing recommendation carrying real privacy exposure. Five reviewers.

5 reviewers · scored 18/100 · Critical concernsCampaign plan · privacy exposureCampaign Direction Recommendation

The same recommendation at seven reviewers.

7 reviewers · scored 18/100 · Critical concerns
Run a review See pricing