Lessons / Intermediate

Second opinions on what's expensive to get wrong

Acting on a single AI's "looks good" for something expensive to get wrong — a board email, a contract clause, a pricing change, an investor update — is a coin flip dressed up as confidence.

The move the best operators make: for anything costly to get wrong, get a second and third opinion automatically, and trust where they agree. A skeptical review pass catches the unclear ask, the tone problem, the commitment you didn't mean to make, before it goes out.

Try it now

Take one real high-stakes thing you're about to send and run it through a critical review first:

Before I send this, review it for anything that could backfire — unclear asks, tone problems, commitments I didn't mean to make, or facts that might be wrong. Be skeptical, not encouraging. Then tell me what you'd change.

[paste the draft]

If you have a tool that fans the same question out to several models (multi-model review), even better — agreement across independent reviewers is real signal.

You've got it when…

The review surfaced at least one real issue you then fixed before sending — or credibly confirmed it was clean. Either way, you acted on more than one opinion for the thing that mattered.

That's the intermediate track. You've connected your stack, saved your repeated work, handed the AI a decision rule, and started getting second opinions on what counts. If you want to push it hard — parallel agents, building your own tools — the Power track is next.