Skip to main content

POLYBRAIN.

Building a control plane.

Validation Run

We check the work before you see it.

polybrain
$ polybrain check research/white-label-ai.md
Checking sources...
✓ All 14 sources verified
Scoring with 3 independent AI models...
Model 1 (OpenAI) 87/100
Model 2 (Groq) 84/100
Model 3 (xAI) 86/100
Running adversarial review...
⚠ One data source may be biased — flagged for review
✓ Score: 80.4 / 100 — Approved for publication

Real Output

This is what a validation run looks like.

Actual output from validating a published research brief. Three models score quality. A fourth attacks it.

polybrain — research validation
╔══════════════════════════════════════╗
║ POLYBRAIN — Multi-Model Validation ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════╝
Target: research/white-label-ai.md
Mode: research
Models: GPT-4o · Llama 3.3 · Grok 3
── SOURCE VERIFICATION ──
✓ 14/14 cited URLs returned 200
── QUALITY EVALUATION ──
GPT-4o 87/100
Llama 3.3 84/100
Grok 3 86/100
Median 86/100
── ADVERSARIAL REVIEW (GPT-4o) ──
MAJOR: Vendor-sourced data presented as objective market research
MINOR: Dated competitor pricing (Q3 2025 data cited as current)
MINOR: Missing disclosure of Polylogic's own market position
Adversarial 72/100
── COMPOSITE ──
Quality (60%) 51.6
Adversarial(40%)28.8
Composite 80.4/100 PASS
Revision skipped (composite ≥ 80)
Audit saved: research/audits/2026-03-29-white-label-ai.md
Run persisted to Supabase (0.04s)

From a real run on March 29, 2026. The adversarial reviewer flagged vendor-sourced data as a bias risk. The brief passed at 80.4 after the finding was addressed.

The Pipeline

Three stages. Every artifact.

Awareness, validation, gate. What enters the pipeline either passes or does not ship.

01
AWARENESS

Classify the artifact.

Polybrain identifies what is being validated: research paper, production plan, client site, agent, reveal, dashboard, or media. Each type has its own validator with targeted checks.

02
VALIDATION

Run independent checks.

Research gets multi-model scoring from GPT-4o, Llama 3.3, and Grok 3, then an adversarial review that finds every flaw. Sites get HTTP and availability checks. Agents get identity verification and cross-contamination detection. Each validator runs checks specific to what it is reviewing.

03
GATE

Pass, warn, or block.

Every artifact must clear its validator. Research needs an 80+ composite score. Product deployments exit with a pass or fail signal. Critical failures block the deploy. Warnings get flagged for review.

By The Numbers

Real numbers from real runs.

Not projections. Not roadmap. What the system does today.

3

Independent models

GPT-4o, Llama 3.3, Grok 3. Different companies, different training data, different blind spots. That is the point.

6

Typed validators

Site, agent, reveal, dashboard, media, and shared component. Each with checks specific to what it validates.

3

Pipeline stages

Awareness, validation, gate. Every artifact is classified, checked, and either passes or does not ship.

$0.04

Average cost per run

Cheap enough to run on everything. Research briefs, production plans, client sites, agent behavior. No reason to skip it.

Mistakes We Caught

AI makes mistakes. We catch them first.

Every one of these errors was caught by the validation pipeline before anything reached a client.

Bias Detection

A research brief cited vendor-sourced data as objective market research. The adversarial reviewer flagged the bias risk. The final version disclosed the source.

White-Label AI brief, March 2026

Factual Error

A report stated a tool had 3.6 million weekly users. Cross-validation with a second model found the real number was 33.8 million. Off by 10x. Caught before publication.

Agent Orchestration brief, March 2026

Missing Competitor

A market analysis left out a major competitor entirely. A second AI model flagged the gap. The final version included it with proper positioning.

Competitive Landscape brief, March 2026

Internal Contradiction

Two sections of the same brief disagreed on a key market projection. The pipeline spotted the conflict and resolved it with verified sources.

Identified during Research Quality Audit

The Stack

Different models. Different companies. Different blind spots.

No single AI provider validates its own output. Independence is the architecture, not the afterthought.

GPT-4o

OpenAI

QUALITY + ADVERSARIAL + FEASIBILITY

Scores quality, then tears the work apart in a separate adversarial pass. For plans, evaluates real-world feasibility.

Llama 3.3

Groq

QUALITY + REVISION

Free inference via Groq. Scores the same quality dimensions, then strengthens weak areas flagged by the adversarial review.

Grok 3

xAI

QUALITY + FACT-CHECK

Most recent training data. Scores quality and independently fact-checks every claim against its knowledge.

Vision Models

Multi-provider

VISUAL AUDIT

GPT-4o Vision and Llama Vision score screenshots across 8 dimensions: visual polish, brand consistency, mobile readiness, and more.

Research

Published work behind the pipeline.

The methodology is documented, the claims are sourced, and we audit our own papers with the same system.

MethodologyAcademic CitationsCore Paper

Cross-Model Consensus

Why different models catch different things. Cites Zheng et al. (NeurIPS 2023) on single-model bias and Verga et al. (2024) on panel-of-judges evaluation. The methodology behind the pipeline.

Read the paper
Framework11 Academic Sources

Structural Role Separation

Four functional roles appear in biological, organizational, and AI systems. When role boundaries collapse, the same failure modes emerge. The theoretical framework behind Polybrain.

Read the paper
Self-AuditTransparency

Research Quality Audit

We audited all 20 of our own papers against the evidence standards of Anthropic, Stripe, McKinsey, and a16z. 45% had zero clickable source links. Here is every gap and the fix.

Read the paper

See what validated work looks like.

Enter your Instagram handle. We will research your industry, build you an AI agent, and validate it through this pipeline.

Design your Poly agent