When a decision will go to a board, a chief executive, or another forum that can stop the company, put the finished package into an AI review and ask it to quote every claim your own exhibits do not support. Do this while the memo or deck can still change, before the signature, the vote, or the outbound email.
What high-stakes work usually breaks on
These packages already have an owner, a deadline, and a stack of source files. Problems show up where the narrative and the backup disagree, where a preferred reading of the numbers is treated as settled, or where the ask is clear and the cost of saying no is left out. A board memo softens a risk the audit committee has already seen in a letter. A chief executive briefing quotes growth that the cohort table does not show. A strategy note treats a counsel preference as settled law, or leaves out the jurisdiction limit that would change the recommendation.
Feed the package you already have and tell the reviewer to break it. A blank-prompt rewrite of the same memo often adds fluent filler and invents citations.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. The chief executive of an 80-person software company has a finance recommendation to renew a three-year cloud contract at $4.2 million. Signing locks usage tiers and annual uplift. Before signing, the chief executive puts four things into one request:
- The recommendation memo and the pricing appendix.
- The current contract, including the renewal, uplift, and exit clauses.
- Last year's usage report and a competing quote that expires in ten days.
- One instruction: list each claim the exhibits do not support, quoting the sentence; recalculate the three-year cost if usage grows at half the forecast rate; and name the first objections a skeptical chief financial officer would raise.
A review that helps points at a concrete gap. It might find that the memo says "flat annual uplift" while the current contract and the renewal redline both set a 7 percent floor after year one. It might recalculate the half-growth case and show that the competing quote becomes cheaper in year two under that assumption, which no page of the memo mentions. The chief executive can check both against the appendix in a few minutes, then correct the uplift language and add the half-growth case with a stop condition. A review that calls the memo thorough gives the chief executive nothing to check.
A request you can copy
Below are the decision I am about to make, the memo or deck that recommends it, and the source exhibits. List each claim the exhibits do not support, quoting the sentence or slide. Then list the first five questions [the board, a chief executive, or a skeptical finance lead] would ask, and for each one say whether the package already answers it and where. Rerun the main numbers assuming [the assumption that matters most, for example that growth lands at half the forecast]. Don't rewrite the package.
Leave the exhibits in. High-stakes objections often come from a gap between the write-up and the backup, and a reviewer that only sees the write-up cannot find it.
How the Pingpong web review app runs it
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. On a decision package, an early pass might list unsupported claims and a later pass might check whether the arithmetic behind those objections holds up. You get a final answer and can open each earlier pass.
Each reviewer reads the earlier answers, so a confident mistake in the first pass can carry forward. A model can also misread a spreadsheet exported as text. Check every flagged number against the source file before you change the memo or sign.
What a model review can't check
A model does not know what was said after the last closed session, which director has history with the market you are entering, or which disclosure your counsel already cleared. Legal, tax, and accounting treatments that need a person responsible for the answer belong with that person before you commit. The review can give you a short list of questions and document gaps to take into those conversations.
If the package is a board pack headed into a meeting, see reviewing a board pack before the meeting. If you are choosing between options and the write-up is not finished, see reviewing a decision between options. If you already have a draft answer to check line by line, see getting a second opinion on a draft. For the steps in the app, see running your first review. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.