Strategic intelligence. Human judgment.

We deliver the decisions you can’t afford to get wrong.

Deep research at machine scale, independently challenged, with a seasoned human expert accountable for the recommendation — delivered in weeks at a fixed, published price.

Recent work spans enterprise software, healthcare IT services, media technology, and digital services — for the chief executive, the revenue leader, and the executive deciding for themselves.

Discuss a decision See an example

Important decisions have two bad defaults.

Traditional consulting

Deep. Experienced. And usually:

Measured in months
Staffed with large teams
Six figures before the first finding
Hard to justify for a single decision

Raw AI

Fast. Accessible. And usually:

Generic where the specifics matter
Inconsistent between one run and the next
Unverifiable at the point you need it most
Impossible to defend in a board meeting

There is another way.

Binary Advisers combines research at machine scale with a consulting-grade decision process, independent verification, and a human who is accountable for the recommendation.

We used PRISM to create the Binary Advisers business model and this website. And guess what — you are here.

From the question to the next move.

Frame
Define the consequential decision precisely, in writing, before any research begins. Most bad analysis is the right answer to the wrong question.
Investigate
Build the evidence base across companies, markets, people, competitors, channels, and the external signals that move them.
Synthesize
Find the patterns, the contradictions, the risks, and the outcomes the evidence actually supports — with the probability attached.
Challenge
A separate adversarial pass tries to disprove the analysis. It runs its own searches and hunts for the source that changes the conclusion.
Decide
Translate the intelligence into an executive recommendation, the decision logic behind it, and the next actions in order.

PRISM gathers and synthesizes evidence in service of one decision. Information is the input; the decision is the product.

A recommendation you can interrogate.

Follow the evidence.

See what is verified, what is assumed, and what remains unresolved. An independent model challenges the analysis before a human signs the recommendation.

Question
Evidence
Analysis
Challenge
Decision

The sources. The uncertainty. The reasons to act.

The deliverable

See the thinking, not just the conclusion.

Start with the recommendation. Inspect the sources, understand the uncertainty, and see what would change the answer.

Explore a sample analysis

Illustrative PRISM analysis

The question

Should we expand into the adjacent segment this quarter, or hold?

The conclusion

Hold this quarter. The segment is real and growing, but the two conditions that make your entry defensible are not yet true — and one of them is inside your control.

ConfidenceModerate

Stated as a band, not a point estimate. The dossier names what would move it.

Cross-model challenged

Every load-bearing claim was handed to a second, independent model with its own live search and instructed to refute it.

41 claims challenged · 6 revised · 1 withdrawn · 1 left unresolved

The revisions and the withdrawal are listed in the dossier, not buried. A verification pass that never changes anything was not a verification pass.

What the evidence says

The segment is growing, and the growth is not an artifact of one large buyer.
The two incumbents are not defending on price; they are defending on integration depth.
Entry pricing that clears your margin floor sits above where the segment currently transacts.
Whether procurement cycles in this segment run long enough to strand a quarter of pipeline is not established.

Hover a reference for a quick read of the evidence behind it — its grade, its source, and when it was retrieved. Click it (tap, on touch) to open the full record: the finding, the excerpt, and the sources.

What would change our mind

A named design partner willing to co-build the integration before you commit sales capacity.
Evidence that the transacting price band has moved up in the last two quarters rather than being a floor.

Assumptions most likely to fail

Your current margin floor holds through the period.
The incumbents do not respond to entry with a price move — they have not previously, but they have the room.

One menu, five ways in.

There is no required sequence. Enter wherever your question already is — or start small when the plan itself is the question.

Start

An optional first engagement when the plan itself is the question

Find the starting pointWe have targets, but no agreed plan to reach them.Discovery & Assessment

Decide

Depth on a decision you have already framed

Pursue

Winning a named account you have already chosen

Win an accountWhat would actually make this company buy from us?Account Pursuit Intelligence

Sustain

Offered to active clients at an engagement debrief

Intelligence Continuity

Consulting

Senior counsel for a single executive decision, scoped by conversation

Make an executive decisionWhat does the evidence say when the consequences are personal?Executive Decision Advisory

Not sure which of these fits? That is exactly what the twenty-minute conversation is for — working out which engagement, if any, your question needs costs nothing. Ask us instead

Your question doesn’t fit a category?

We’ll carry your question into the conversation form. Nothing is sent yet.

Recent work

Real decisions, really worked.

Five engagements from recent months, described without names — the same discretion applies to every client. Each one says what was actually built and delivered, and claims nothing else.

Described without names, deliberately. Each entry states what was built and delivered; none claims a client result.

The shape of the work

One complicated question enters. Structure comes out.

Evidence
Assumptions
Trade-offs
Probabilities
Unresolved

Know the scope before you commit.

Explore published prices and delivery windows. Where the price depends on scope, we explain why.

Where to start

Discovery & Assessment

Four weeks from stated ambition to a validated, prioritized roadmap.

$5,0004 weeks

Fixed and flat: 50% on execution, the balance on delivery of the final roadmap. Quoted before the work starts and unchanged after it.

One question

Decision Brief

One consequential question, answered decision-ready.

$7,50010 business days

Fixed. Quoted before the work starts and unchanged after it.

One account

Account Pursuit Intelligence

Everything your team needs to win one named account.

$5,000~1 week per account — a provisional delivery target

Per target account. Three accounts for $13,500 where they share a vertical and sales motion, so the foundation work amortizes.

The whole picture

Full-Stack Intelligence Dossier

For decisions that need the whole picture before resources and reputation are committed.

$10,0004 weeks

Fixed, one price across three of the four scopes — Marketing & Channel Execution is priced separately at $15,000. One dossier in production at a time.

The second door

Marketing & Channel Execution

Every channel you run, scored against the competitors you actually lose to.

$15,0004 weeks

Fixed. Priced above the dossier’s other scopes because the five channel deep-dives with named-competitor benchmarking are the heaviest delivery load on the menu. Same fixed scope card, same production slot.

Kept current

Intelligence Continuity

Your question, kept current.

Priced at scoping — published once costed

Introduced at your engagement debrief and priced at scoping. We do not publish a retainer price we have not yet costed against a full monthly delivery cycle — when we have, it will be published here.

Consulting services

Executive Decision Advisory

For an individual facing a consequential professional decision.

Priced by scope of engagement — by conversation only

By conversation only. No public price, and no form — it begins with a scheduled call, requested by email.

See the full menu, with scope cards

Why Binary Advisers

Built for decisions where being approximately right isn’t enough.

Evidence first
A conclusion that matters must be traceable to what produced it. If it cannot be traced, it is labeled as what it is.
Adversarial by design
The process actively looks for reasons its own conclusions may be wrong, and reports what it finds rather than what it hoped.
Executive translation
The work ends with what the evidence means for the decision in front of you — not with a summary of the research.
Human judgment
Machines accelerate the work. A person signs the recommendation and is accountable for it.

Behind every engagement is PRISM.

A proprietary decision system built to turn fragmented evidence into strategic judgment you can defend.

Today PRISM powers this firm’s strategic-intelligence work. Its underlying architecture is broader than that: a common method for how humans and machines investigate, reason, challenge their assumptions, and decide.

One shared method. Many specialized teams.

The useful future of this technology is probably not one universal assistant. It is specialized teams built around specific missions. Teams like that need a shared way of deciding — one where every conclusion can be checked by the people who are accountable for it: your own decision-makers, your own board. PRISM is being developed as that shared method.

That is a direction of development, not a product you can buy today. What you can buy today is on the engagements page, each with its price or the honest reason there is not one yet.

What’s the decision you can’t afford to get wrong?

Bring us one consequential question. We’ll tell you whether this is the right way to answer it — including when it isn’t.

Discuss a decision

Twenty minutes. No pitch deck required.