Idea▪Autopsy
Case files open — beta, operated by humans
KILL

The AI that tries to kill your idea.

Every AI flatters your idea. This one signs kill conditions before seeing any evidence — then hunts for the data that proves you wrong.

Idea Autopsy · Intake Cold mode — no flattery
Enter to submit · Free · No email Returns your kill criteria — not an opinion

Case file — pre-registered
PENDING EVIDENCE

Assumptions that must be true
    Kill conditions
      What the autopsy would investigate

      The rules are now signed. Someone has to go find the evidence — the market's corpses, the voice of the pain, the case against. That's the autopsy.

      Run the full autopsy — $29 beta
      From the archive — Case 001 · realClosed 2026-08-12
      KILLED

      "An open-source alternative to PrintNode"

      Kill conditions — signed before the evidence
      • If the incumbent is cheap enough to be painless, the idea dies.MET — $9/mo
      • If near-identical open-source projects already exist without traction, the idea dies.MET — 0★ and 1★
      • If manufacturers bundle the capability free with their hardware, the idea dies.MET — 2 major brands
      VERDICT: KILL · ruled by pre-signed conditionsCost: $0 and 1 day. Not built: 3 months.
      Skip the free step — run the full autopsy: $29 → How it killed its maker's ideas first ↓
      4 ideas killed pre-launch 5 operator assumptions refuted 0 lines of code wasted Kill thresholds: public
      The problem

      Validation by chatbot is a mirror, not a microscope.

      Exhibit AApril 2025 — documented
      "This is absolutely brilliant… It's not just smart — it's genius."

      — ChatGPT, to a Reddit user pitching a literal "shit on a stick" gag product. It suggested $30,000 could launch it. OpenAI rolled the model back days later for sycophancy.

      Not a bug you can prompt away — studies show "be critical" doesn't protect you. Validation needs structure, not vibes.

      The protocol

      Four mechanisms a chatbot can't fake.

      01

      Sign the rules first.

      Assumptions and kill conditions get locked before any evidence exists — nothing can bend the conclusion to please you.

      02

      Evidence, not opinions.

      Market map (alive vs. dead, real prices) + voice of the pain (verbatim quotes with links) — every citation checked to exist.

      03

      The adversary.

      A dedicated pass with one job: build the strongest possible case against your idea.

      04

      The verdict.

      KILL / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / STRONG — ruled by your signed conditions, not the model's mood. Plus the full autopsy of what died and why.

      Prior casework

      It killed its maker's ideas first.

      Five of its creator's ideas went in. Four came out dead — each with cited evidence.

      Case 001 — open-source printing tool
      KILLED

      "Open-source PrintNode alternative"

      Cause of deathIncumbent costs $9/month, and two identical OSS projects sit at 0-1 stars. Nobody came.

      Case 002 — developer sandbox
      KILLED

      "LocalStack for the WhatsApp API"

      Cause of deathTesting turned out to be the least-voiced pain of the entire lifecycle. A vacuum, not a market.

      Case 003 — integration agent
      KILLED

      "An agent that installs the integration in your repo"

      Cause of deathFree wrappers already solved the coding pain; the real blocker is paperwork no code removes.

      Case 004 — marketing research product
      KILLED

      "Validated ad strategy for marketers"

      Cause of death~32 searches, zero first-person quotes of the buyer. Only vendors voice this pain.

      Case 005 — this product
      PROCEED

      Idea Autopsy itself

      VerdictThe one survivor — built on the loudest documented pain of everything measured: AI sycophancy in business decisions. This page is its pre-registered smoke test. Not enough buyers → it dies too, autopsy published.

      The deliverable

      What you get.

      Questions

      The four you're already asking.

      Why can't I just ask ChatGPT?

      You can — and it will probably encourage you. Sycophancy is structural (models are trained on human approval), and research shows "be critical" prompts don't fix it. What works is process: criteria committed before evidence, deliberate search for disconfirming data, verified citations, and a separate adversary. That's not a prompt. That's Idea Autopsy.

      How is this different from an AI research report?

      Evidence reports already exist — good ones even link their sources. The difference is sequence and teeth: Idea Autopsy commits to kill conditions before any evidence is gathered, runs a dedicated adversarial pass against your idea, and rules KILL or PROCEED by those pre-signed rules — not by whatever tone the model woke up with. A report informs you. An autopsy decides.

      What if my idea is actually good?

      Then it survives the autopsy and you get something more valuable than encouragement: the documented reasons it holds up, the conditions it depends on, and the evidence to move fast with confidence.

      How long does it take?

      24 hours. During beta we onboard manually — a human operates the system on your idea, end to end.

      Open a case

      Bring the idea you're most in love with.

      Get your verdict — $29 beta

      PRE-REGISTERED EXPERIMENT — This launch runs under the same rules the product sells: its kill thresholds were written down before this page went live. If it doesn't reach them, Idea Autopsy dies like cases 001–004, and the autopsy gets published.