Science keeps rediscovering the same structures in different vocabularies. No instrument can see it.
Two theories in. Graded structural comparison out. Where they correspond and how strongly. Where they genuinely diverge and exactly which commitment breaks. Whether each disagreement is testable with instruments that exist today. What it refused to match and why. Deterministic. Same inputs, same output. Content hash verifiable.
An international expert collaboration spent eleven laboratories, nineteen months, and significant capital to compare two theories through workshops and travel. The engine read the same source texts and recovered the same structural disagreements in weeks. Plus one disagreement the experts could not resolve, with the structural reason attached.
Neurosymbolic architecture. Schema constrained extraction with cross model agreement. Typed subgraph isomorphism for deterministic matching. Four rung grading ladder with explicit ceilings. Versioned instrument capability map for testability assessment. Content hash verification for reproducibility. Published rejections with structural reasons.
The model reads. The code judges. The judge is never a language model.
Read the method →Researchers
Upload two competing theories. Receive a graded structural comparison with exact disagreements, testability verdicts, and published rejections. Every verdict traces to source sentences. Deterministic and citable.
Request a workspace →Creators
A research desk for scientific content. Add your sources. The desk segments them into quotable passages with timestamps and citations, finds the connections, and gives you a writing surface where every claim traces to a primary source.
Join the waitlist →Working demo live. First domain validated. Creator desk in final development. Scientific diligence product in design.