Focused
€4kOne product, the core surfaces. A fast, honest read before a small launch.
- Up to ~25 surfaces
- Risk register + fix plan
- Async readout
A full read of your public signal before you ship. We map what the public actually sees, says, and misreads — then hand you a scored risk register and a fix plan you can act on this week.
One-time, fixed-scope engagement · 2–3 weeks
If your project is complex, public, and easy to misread, an audit pays for itself before launch day.
A token, fork, or protocol where the narrative will move faster than you can.
Real capability buried under claims people can't verify or compare.
An outage, exploit, or contentious decision left the public unsure what's true.
Findings that matter but don't survive the trip to a general audience.
Six artifacts, delivered as one report and walked through live. Yours to keep and reuse. The thinking behind this
Every surface the public reads you on — site, docs, socials, forums, code, search — and what each one is actually saying.
Each confusion and trust risk, scored for likelihood and impact, with the surface it lives on and the evidence behind it.
Where the audience loses the plot, drawn.
The true thing, said clearly, with claim/proof pairs.
What to change first, ranked by effort and payoff.
One or two finished pieces — a diagram, an explainer, a one-pager — you can publish the day we hand it over.
Real structure, fake project. Every risk is scored, sourced, and tied to a surface.
| ID | Risk | Surface | Severity | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 | Token vs. protocol name used interchangeably | Docs · X | High, 8.8 | |
| R-02 | No plain-language answer to “is my money safe?” | Site · FAQ | High, 7.6 | |
| R-03 | Fork timeline contradicts the blog post | Blog · GitHub | Medium, 5.4 | |
| R-04 | Governance vote framed as “done” while still open | Forum | Medium, 4.7 | |
| R-05 | Docs assume knowledge a newcomer doesn't have | Docs | Low, 3.1 |
Four moves over two to three weeks. Low-lift for you — we do the reading.
You send links and context. 30-minute kickoff, then we go quiet and read.
Every public surface, captured and normalized. We cite as we go.
Confusion mapped, risks scored, positioning drafted.
A live walk-through, the full report, and the fix plan. Questions answered on the call.
One fixed scope, three depths. Price scales with the number of surfaces and how contentious the launch is.
One product, the core surfaces. A fast, honest read before a small launch.
The full audit for a real launch — all six deliverables, live readout.
Contentious or high-stakes. Multiple products, deeper history, more artifacts.
If yours isn't here, send it — vague is fine for a first email.
No. The audit reads only what the public can see — that's the point. Private context helps us interpret, but isn't required.
Never without consent. Case studies are anonymized — structure kept, identity removed — and only with your sign-off.
Still useful — a post-launch read tells you what's already being misread, and what to fix first. It also works as the starting point for monitoring.
Yes. The audit is the baseline; Trust Monitoring keeps watching after launch.
A short note with your links and timeline is enough to start.