Review the decision package before the meeting, the vote, or the send

Chief executives and senior operators use Pingpong to pressure-test a board pack, leadership proposal, high-stakes memo, or board reply while the document can still change. Put the write-up and its exhibits into one request, ask for every claim the backup does not support, and check each flag against the source file before the meeting, the signature, or the outbound email.

Where executive work breaks

The soft spots sit between the narrative and the backup. A slide quotes a sales cycle the appendix does not use. A renewal memo calls uplift flat while the redline sets a floor. A leadership deck treats a preferred reading of two quarters of churn as settled. A reply to a director restates a number the board pack never showed. The people who wrote the package already share the same assumptions, so those gaps stay invisible until someone outside the drafting group asks the first hard question.

Pingpong does not replace counsel, the audit committee, or the person accountable for the decision. It returns a list of unsupported claims and likely objections you can verify in minutes.

Choose the guide for the job

Use the page that matches the artifact you have today:

• Review a board pack before the meeting when directors will receive a deck and appendix in the next few days and you still have time to fix a slide.
• War-game a high-stakes decision before the board meeting when you want to play the ask against the directors who can stop it and the scenarios that would make the room regret it, then change the ask before the pre-read goes out.
• War-game a company strategy choice before you commit when you are choosing among expansion, specialization, partnership, or exit paths and want to play the preferred path against board seats and outside responses before the vote.
• Review a CEO decision you own before you announce it when the call sits inside your own authority, such as a renewal price increase or a unit consolidation, and directors will see the result at the next meeting without voting on it first.
• Have Pingpong role-play the skeptical director when you want one pass that argues as the director most likely to vote no before you walk into the meeting.
• Have Pingpong role-play the board chair when you want one pass on agenda control, process gaps, and fiduciary pressure before the meeting.
• Have Pingpong role-play the competitor reading your plan when you want one pass that argues as a named rival against your pricing, GTM, or launch package before you commit or take it to leadership.
• Have Pingpong role-play the enterprise buyer before procurement when a large deal is about to reach the buyer's procurement, security, and legal teams and you want to know which requests would cross the limits your board set.
• Have Pingpong role-play a mid-market buyer before you send the proposal when one or two people at a smaller company will decide, and you want to know which billing, term, or start-date choice would make them hesitate.
• War-game a message to a platform before you send it when an app store, marketplace, or payment platform has removed, demoted, or repriced you and you are drafting the appeal or ask that has to work on the first read.
• War-game your reply to an app store rejection when a rejected build is holding up a launch and you want to know which guidelines a reply can clear and which need a new build.
• War-game an investor update before you send it when a monthly or quarterly letter to the cap table is still a draft and you want one pass that reads it as the investor most likely to reply.
• Have Pingpong role-play the skeptical investor before the partner meeting when you are raising a priced or inside round and want one pass that argues as the investor most likely to pass on your retention, payback, market, and use of funds.
• Before you raise: decide whether the company is ready to fundraise when you want the milestone, the metrics, runway after a slow process, alternatives, dilution, and an early stop signal challenged before the round opens.
• War-game a data room before investors open it when you want key numbers reconciled with the deck, missing and stale files found, access staged, and one question log set up.
• War-game a secondary sale story before employees and investors hear it when you want one fact sheet, every message checked against it, and the allocation tested for fairness before the board approves.
• War-game a fundraising deck before investors open it when the deck is drafted and you want one pass that checks every metric against the model, recalculates runway on the ask slide, and tests whether the slides work as a forwarded PDF.
• Before you acquire: test the thesis before diligence starts when you want buy versus build or partner compared, each claim turned into a diligence test, and walk-away conditions agreed in advance.
• Before you sign the term sheet: prepare the board's questions when you want economics, control, and binding terms sorted and explained, the effective valuation calculated, and questions ready for counsel.
• Before you close the round: reconcile the documents and promises when you want the cap table, side letters, resolution, wire plan, and post-close commitments checked against each other before money moves.
• War-game an acquisition integration before the board accepts the synergies when you want a synergy ledger with owners and evidence, and hard questions on customers, people, and systems by Day 1, 30, and 90.
• Have Pingpong role-play the CFO before you commit to a plan when a growth, expansion, or restructuring plan is headed to the board and you want one pass on cash low point, covenant headroom, and forecast assumptions against actuals.
• War-game a cash runway brief before the number reaches the board when you want the runway figure rebuilt from restricted cash, one-time items, covenant floors, and the downside case.
• Before you cut burn: work backward from the runway you need when you want the target, levers measured against current spending, dated savings, and protected work tested before you commit.
• War-game a headcount freeze before the board hears it when you want the freeze written as rules, tested against real cases, savings recomputed, and an end trigger the board can track.
• War-game a budget cut before the board commits to the savings when you want each line tested for contract timing, displaced cost, revenue effects, and double counting.
• War-game a budget reforecast before you present the new numbers when you want the plan-to-reforecast bridge sorted, second-half assumptions tested, and each investment marked keep, pause, or stop.
• War-game an OKRs reset before you publish the new objectives when you want owners, outcome key results, the count, realistic targets, and a mid-cycle change rule checked before the company and board see the set.
• War-game a pricing change before the board books the revenue when you want the revenue model rebuilt by segment and contract terms, and sales and success readiness checked before launch.
• Before you change pricing: decide the policies and the walk-back rule when you want grandfathering, notice, churn risk by group, commissions, packaging, and a measurement window settled before you commit.
• War-game a pricing floor before the board signs off on discounts when you want the floor tested on margin, payback, and competitive reference, every concession counted, and exceptions logged with a named approver.
• War-game a pricing grandfather clause before the board approves it when you want the carve-out priced by year against plan, loopholes like old-price seat additions closed, a step-up schedule, and an exceptions rule.
• War-game a reorg before you announce it when a new org chart is drafted and you want one pass from the seats it affects on span of control, retention, customer coverage, net savings, and announcement order.
• War-game a layoff communications plan before the day is set when you want the day walked through by affected employees, managers, customers, investors, and reporters before the order is fixed.
• Before you announce layoffs: check the decision is ready when you want the case, net savings, alternatives, selection criteria, and open approvals tested before a date is set.
• Before you let someone go: check the reason and the handover when you want the documents, coverage, access plan, and talking points checked for gaps before HR and counsel review.
• Review a reorg proposal before you commit to it when someone has proposed a restructure and you want one pass on whether the evidence supports it, which smaller changes it rules out, and what is missing before a decision.
• Before you pivot: answer the board's questions first when you want the decline, the new evidence, the switching cost, what stops, and the reversal measures questioned before you announce.
• Before you change your ICP: test the evidence and write the definition when you want the evidence, disqualifiers, pipeline and customers outside the profile, the scorecard, and a 90-day proof checked before sales changes course.
• War-game a churn response before the board asks why when you want lost revenue cut by segment, cohort, and cause, interventions matched to causes, and a board update cadence set.
• War-game a customer advisory board before the invitations go out when you want seats checked against your revenue mix, perks and conflicts flagged, and a clear route from members to the board.
• War-game a brand repositioning before you fund it when you want the new promise tested against current proof, demand at risk counted, and a 90-day test and walk-back point set.
• Before you kill the project: test the evidence against the original bet when you want original criteria, current results, the cost of continuing, the wind-down, and the board narrative checked before you decide.
• Before you sunset a product: check the gates first when you want revenue at risk, notice, migration readiness, support staffing, and a walk-back plan checked before customers hear.
• Before you kill the feature: find who still depends on it when you want usage by revenue, every promise of the feature, the replacement, and a rollback step checked before removal.
• Before you enter a new market: test the demand and the checkpoints when you want demand evidence ranked, the full cost of entry counted, and continue or stop checkpoints set before you fund a team.
• Stress-test a go-to-market plan before the board funds it when you want the funnel rebuilt from your own rates, capacity recomputed, conversion halved, and weekly owners named before you fund it.
• Before you launch: define done and test the adoption cases when you want a measurable launch goal, high and low adoption cases, frozen pricing, trained teams, and a rollback switch confirmed before the date.
• Before you partner: test what you give, what you get, and the exit when you want exclusivity, roadmap and data commitments, the underperformance case, and exit rights checked before you sign.
• Before you sign the contract: price the full term and the exit when you want commitments, minimums, escalators, renewal dates, exit cost, and liability caps checked against the plan before you sign.
• Before you hire: make the case for the role first when you want the outcome, alternatives, manager capacity, fully loaded cost, and day 90 success checked before a role opens.
• War-game a hiring plan before the board approves it when an annual or mid-year headcount plan is drafted and you want one pass that recomputes what new hires can deliver from your own ramp data and flags roles with no outcome attached.
• War-game a compensation review before the committee sees it when you want merit, promotion, and equity totals reconciled with plan and reserve, and compression, refresh gaps, and executive increases checked.
• Stress-test a headcount plan against the ways it can fail when you want named failure scenarios run against the plan, the first commitment each one breaks, and quarterly triggers the board can watch.
• War-game a succession plan before the board discusses it when you want the plan tested as if the seat went empty next Monday, covering interim leadership, relationships, signing authority, retention, and first messages.
• War-game a media interview before the board reads the coverage when you want a well-prepared reporter to find unprepared questions, answers that conflict with board figures, and lines that would read badly quoted alone.
• War-game a press release before the announcement goes out when you want the draft read by a skeptical reporter, a director, and an affected customer before it is sent.
• War-game a founder letter before investors and employees read it when you want every claim, number, promise, and hedge checked against the board pack before the letter goes out.
• War-game a town hall before you take questions when you want questions sorted, hard ones rehearsed, leaders aligned on one story, and a board summary planned for afterward.
• War-game a delegation framework before the board asks who decides when you want each decision placed in a tier, thresholds checked against what the board has reserved, and escalation paths that end with someone deciding.
• War-game a founder-mode operating cadence before the board sees it when you want each deep dive given a purpose and an end date, the areas you will leave alone named, and a board update that shows progress against plan.
• War-game a meeting cadence change before the board approves the calendar when you want every recurring meeting given a purpose and a decision it owns, duplicates merged, pre-read deadlines set, and board committees chartered.
• War-game a metrics review before the board reads the numbers when you want fewer, owned metrics with fixed definitions, a written rule for green, and misses explained with a cause and a recovery date.
• Stress-test a forecast miss review before the board hears it when you want the miss bridged to the dollar, accounting changes separated from performance, shifting explanations caught, and recovery dates owned.
• War-game a renewal forecast model before the board relies on it when you want gross renewal shown on its own, probability weights checked against history, unsupported expansion capped, and a low, base, and high case.
• War-game a capacity plan before the board approves the revenue plan when you want demand traced into capacity by quarter, utilization checked against what you have achieved, lead times counted, and the first bottleneck named.
• War-game a headcount plan before the board approves the cost base when you want attrition and backfills in the count, every seat fully loaded, in-year cost shown next to exit run rate, and team caps with a release gate.
• War-game an expansion trigger rule before the board pre-approves growth when you want a precise threshold and duration, an independent confirmer, tranched unlocks, and a rollback, all tested against your own history.
• Stress-test a risk register before the board reviews it when you want every risk owned, scored with a reason, tied to a trigger and a dated mitigation, and separated from issues already underway.
• War-game a roadmap cut before the board approves the list when you want cuts scored on forward cost and revenue exposure, savings counted by team, and every customer commitment handled before the list is final.
• War-game a vendor selection before the board approves the contract when you want scorecard weights checked, the full-term cost built, concentration risk covered by a fallback, and exit terms you could actually use.
• Stress-test a vendor exit before the board approves it when you want notice deadlines, data export, dual-run cost, and customer obligations lined up, with an extension right secured before notice goes out.
• War-game a marketplace expansion before the board approves the channel when you want incremental bookings separated from existing pipeline, the full channel cost priced, private offers under your discount rules, and kill criteria written first.
• Pretend you are the journalist investigating your company when a reporter has sent questions and you want the likely story, their probable sources, and the follow-up each answer invites before you reply.
• War-game a press embargo before you brief reporters when you want early access, lift times, partner posts, internal leaks, and board timing tested before reporters get the story.
• Run a crisis tabletop before the real incident tests the plan when you want a timed scenario for the team to answer and a review of who decided what, and when the board heard.
• Stress-test a crisis holding statement before it goes out when an incident is under way and you want claims, commitments, and audience versions checked against what you actually know.
• Review a crisis communications plan before the next incident when you want speakers, backups, channels, update cadence, board escalation, and approvals checked between incidents.
• War-game a regulatory filing before it reaches the examiner when you want conflicts with board materials, weak control claims, and likely follow-up questions found before counsel finalizes the filing.
• War-game a legal strategy memo before the board decides when you want unsupported facts, vague costs, and missing business effects turned into questions for counsel before the meeting.
• Pretend you are the regulator before the meeting with agency staff when you want to rehearse the opening questions, document requests, and follow-ups on inconsistencies before an exam or inquiry.
• War-game a board deck before the meeting when the board slides are drafted and you want one pass on slide order, ask clarity, and trap slides before directors open the file.
• War-game board consent items before the meeting when you are deciding what goes on the consent agenda and want one pass on which items a director would pull, or need to justify taking an item off consent.
• War-game a board consent agenda before the packet goes out when the full agenda is drafted and you want one pass on whether the consent block is the right size, where the vote sits, and what the packet needs.
• Anticipate the hard questions directors are likely to ask when you want a seat-by-seat question list from the pre-read before you walk into the meeting.
• Review a reply to a board question when a director asked a follow-up after the meeting and you are about to send the written answer.
• Stress-test a proposal before leadership for an executive staff meeting, a budget ask to a vice president, or a product review with the people who can stop the plan.
• Stress-test a pitch or strategy deck before you present when you have slides for a pitch, strategy, or board-adjacent meeting and want an adversarial pass before you walk the room through them.
• Review a high-stakes decision package when a finished memo or contract recommendation is headed to a chief executive, a board, or another forum that can stop the company.
• Run a strategy memo through multiple perspectives when you still control the strategy document and want finance, counsel, operations, and customer seats to collide before you socialize the plan.
• Review a decision between options when you are still choosing among alternatives and the write-up is not finished.
• Choose fast AI vs Pingpong review when you need a clear rule for which leadership tasks stay in a single-model chat and which need a slower sequential multi-model pass before a board or signature.
• Compare Pingpong sequential review with Perplexity Model Council when you are choosing between a parallel multi-model merge and a sequential review chain for a board or signature package.
• Compare Pingpong sequential review with ModelCouncil when you are choosing between a parallel Decision Board built from your project documents and a sequential review chain for a board or deal package.
• Compare Pingpong with WiseAI Council when you are deciding between a governed multi-model API inside a team workflow and a review chain you direct for one board or deal package.
• Get a second opinion on a draft for a line-by-line check on an email, summary, or chatbot answer before you use it.
• Work decisions before you commit for the full list of published guides, and running your first review for the steps inside the app.

What to put in the request

Every useful executive review starts from the same four pieces: the ask in one sentence, the memo or deck, the exhibits the claims rest on, and an instruction to quote unsupported lines rather than rewrite the package. Leave the minutes, contracts, usage reports, and spreadsheets in. Objections often come from a gap between the write-up and the backup, and a reviewer that only sees the slides cannot find it.

Name the reader you care about. For a board pack, that is often the director most likely to vote no. For a leadership proposal, name the chief financial officer and the head of the function that will own the work. For a contract renewal, name the person who will sign and the finance lead who will live with the uplift.

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. An early pass might list unsupported claims. 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 a slide or sign.

What a model review cannot 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 counsel already cleared. Legal, tax, accounting, and personnel matters that need a person responsible for the answer belong with that person before you commit. Use the review to build a short list of questions and document gaps for those conversations.