Every Stances answer is grounded in primary sources,giving you credible, objective support for judgement.

Stances turns judgements from interviews, podcasts, and public conversations into replayable insight briefs. It does not give one standard answer; it gives you consensus, disagreement, and primary perspectives to support an independent judgement.

Chat and search tools are useful for explanation and retrieval. Stances organizes different perspectives on the same important question and shows whether each judgement returns to its original context. It is an evidence layer around judgement, not a replacement for general AI.

Stances boundaryWhy does Stances not please the question? →

Podcast search finds a conversation and an interview library finds a person. Stances starts with a decision question, organizes voices across people and programs, and keeps the path back to the original voice.

Each judgement retains the person, original excerpt, program or setting, and source, with the specific timestamp of the traceable excerpt.

Stances boundaryWhy does Stances not fabricate views? →

Stances does not flatten disagreement into one conclusion. It shows shared ground, disputed premises, and variables that change the answer. Content keeps a review date, with checked Chinese interpretation alongside the original English voice.

Stances boundaryWhy does Stances not flatten disagreement? →

Use Stances when a question has no single standard answer but will affect your next choice. Start with credible primary views, then clarify consensus, disagreement, and what needs testing.

Stances is for people who need independent judgement on complex questions: founders, investors, product leaders, researchers, and teams aligning before a meeting, memo, or important choice.

It supports questions that require comparing expert views, locating the source of disagreement, and returning to primary voices: product direction, market shifts, technical paths, investment themes, organizational, and career choices. It provides grounds for judgement, not a verdict for you.

Wiki connects recurring concepts, people, and views from a brief into an explorable knowledge network. You can follow the network to view concept entries and their relevance to the current question, helping turn one answer into a reusable, long-term knowledge asset.

Timeline orders key voices, events, and changes of view around a topic. Use it to understand how a question evolved, then enter the primary voices and opinions at a specific moment instead of reading past judgement through today’s conclusion.

Export a knowledge pack with Markdown, wikilinks, evidence excerpts, and source information into your Obsidian vault. Connect a brief to existing notes, projects, and questions so the research keeps growing in your own knowledge base.

Upload the PDF as a sourced research foundation to Claude or Codex, then ask it to compare options, identify open questions, or analyze it with project material. Establish primary evidence in Stances before using a model for the next layer of reasoning.

Use a Share Link to send a brief to a partner, colleague, or friend so discussion begins from the same evidence chain and judgement structure. It can also be an entry point for an agent to read existing grounds before a follow-on task.