Build · Create · Writing & Content
Argument structure map
A structured argument map that exposes every logical step, making gaps and unsupported leaps reviewable before the argument is sent to stakeholders.
You receive: A JSON document with: `main_claim` (string, >=10 words); `premises` array (each: `id` (P-001 format), `statement` (string, >=8 words), `evidence` (string, >=10 words, specific data, source, or example), `evidence_type` (enum: measured_data | cited_study | analogy | expert_testimony | personal_experience | logical_deduction), `warrant` (string, >=8 words, the unstated assumption linking evidence to premise)); `counterarguments` array (each: `id` (CA-001 format), `objection` (string, >=8 words), `rebuttal` (string, >=8 words)); `argument_type` (enum: deductive | inductive | abductive); `conclusion_restated` (string, >=10 words).
Part of Pitch Investors
Example
A sample of what this play produces. Your result is generated for your inputs.
Main claim
STUD should hold its pre-seed positioning on the living-system frame, selling a workspace that knows the business, does the work, and learns from every result, rather than repositioning as a cheaper alternative to freelance marketplaces.
Argument type
inductive
Premises
| Id | Statement | Evidence | Evidence type | Warrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-001 | The blank prompt box is the real competitor, and it fails on compounding, not on raw capability. | STUD's own problem statement, drawn from its workspace facts: AI can produce real knowledge work, but every chat session starts from zero, the buyer re-explains the business each time, and outputs go stale in documents nobody carries forward. | logical_deduction | A product should be positioned against the failure mode of the incumbent behavior, and the incumbent behavior here is ad hoc chat prompting, not commissioning freelancers. |
| P-002 | STUD already ships the mechanism the living-system frame promises, so the positioning is defensible today. | The catalog measured 265 plays across 14 playbooks in the dev seed on 2026-08-09, each play fills its intake from stored workspace facts, and every deliverable passes its play's acceptance check before it lands and feeds later runs. | measured_data | A positioning claim a prospect can falsify in the first session is a liability, so the frame must describe shipped behavior rather than roadmap intent. |
| P-003 | The economics reward a compounding-system frame over a per-task price frame at STUD's price points. | Plays cost 250 to 1,000 credits, which is $10 to $40 at the 4-cent credit peg, with most plays at 500 credits ($20), bought through prepaid packs from 500 credits for $20 to 5,000 credits for $200, at a modeled gross margin near 87 percent (the margin figure is an estimate). | measured_data | When purchased credits never expire and a run is spent only on an accepted deliverable, the buyer's real decision is whether to buy the next pack, and that decision rests on accumulated system value rather than on comparing one run's price to a freelancer's quote. |
| P-004 | The target buyer stays small on purpose and therefore values retained context more than staffing. | STUD's stated target customer is solo and early-stage founders and small product teams who need marketing, finance, product, and engineering work done while staying small, plus ops and engineering leads adopting agents. | logical_deduction | A buyer who has chosen not to hire is not shopping a labor marketplace, so a frame built around a system that remembers the venture matches the buyer's actual job to be done. |
Counterarguments
| Id | Objection | Rebuttal |
|---|---|---|
| CA-001 | The living-system claim is abstract, and a marketplace-of-tasks pitch converts faster because buyers instantly understand paying per deliverable. | The catalog stays fully visible as the concrete entry point: a buyer still lands on a specific play with a price, and the living-system frame explains why the tenth run is worth more than the first, which the per-task pitch cannot. |
| CA-002 | At pre-seed with a soft launch and paid fulfillment still gated, STUD lacks retention data proving that stored facts actually compound into loyalty. | That is a reason to instrument the claim, not to abandon it: the illustrative launch scenario (200 signups, 40 activated in month one, 25 retained at month three) defines the exact cohort math that will confirm or falsify compounding within one quarter. |
Conclusion restated
Because the mechanism is shipped, the economics favor accumulated value, and the target buyer wants retained context over staffing, STUD keeps the living-system frame as its positioning through the next quarter.
Opens soon
STUD opens runs for everyone soon, on every play at once.
Scope of the check
What's verified: STUD verifies: count floors, schema completeness, enum validity, id uniqueness, word-count floors, required evidence type coverage. STUD does NOT verify: whether the logical chain is actually valid, whether evidence actually supports the premises, whether warrants are plausible.
Get early access to STUD the day it goes live.