Live demonstration

The same forecast, delivered two ways.

Change the numbers below and press run. One simulation happens, in your browser, on your machine. Then we show you that single run twice: once as a glass box, with the method, the seed, the uncertainty band and a sealed receipt you can check — and once as a black box, which is the identical run with the information taken out and a contact sales button bolted on.

This page needs JavaScript — not to track you, but because the simulation runs on your own machine rather than on a server of ours. Nothing on this page is computed anywhere else. The method is written out in full either way.

Show me Side by side Glass box only Black box only

Glass box

This is what LEXUN returns

Everything needed to disagree with us.

—

Probability the business still has cash at the horizon, as a band

0%50%100%

The shaded region is the answer. The thin tick is the raw point estimate — shown, but never led with.

Verdict—

In plain words—

Confidence—

Why that confidence—

Runway (p10 / p50 / p90)—

Model—

Seed · paths—

Resolves on—

Resolution criterion—

What moves the answer

Survival by scenario

Sealed receipt — SHA-256 over the canonical bytes of this run

—

The receipt hashes everything except the wall-clock timestamp, which necessarily differs between two runs. Paste this run into the reproducer and you will get the same band on your own machine — or verify a sealed record without trusting anything on this page.

Black box

Same run, information removed

Everything needed to agree with us, and nothing else.

—

Survival probability

Model: proprietary.

Method: not disclosed.

Uncertainty: not shown.

Seed: not shown.

Inputs: not returned.

Reproducible: no.

Resolution date: none set.

Track record: not published.

This button does nothing. That is the point.

Read this before you accuse us of a strawman. The number above is not a competitor's output and is not invented. It is the median of our own simulation, the one running in the glass panel, printed to one decimal place with the context stripped out. One run, two deliveries. We could not construct a fairer comparison if we tried, because there is only one set of numbers on this page.

A number you cannot inspect is not a forecast. It is an assertion with a decimal point.

What the black panel took away — and what each thing was worth

Every row below is a real property of the run in the glass panel. The black panel has all of them internally; it simply does not give them to you.

What you lose	What that costs you
The uncertainty band	You cannot tell a 55% you should act on from a 55% that is really "somewhere between 40 and 70". Our band comes from the binomial standard error of the run — — at 5,000 paths — widened when the inputs are mostly assumptions.
The seed	Without it nobody, including us, can prove the answer was not cherry-picked from a dozen runs. With it, the same inputs return the same result forever.
The method	You cannot check whether the model is appropriate for your situation, or find the assumption you disagree with. Ours is written out on the Accuracy Centre.
The inputs and their classification	You cannot see which numbers were facts you supplied and which were assumptions someone chose. That distinction is what our confidence level is computed from — it is structural, not a vibe.
The sensitivity ranking	You get a verdict but no lever. The glass panel tells you which single input would move the answer most, so you know where to spend your attention.
The resolution criterion and date	Without a frozen criterion and a date, the forecast can never be marked wrong. Unfalsifiable results are comfortable for the vendor and useless for you.
The sealed receipt	Nothing stops the number being quietly edited afterwards. A SHA-256 seal over the canonical bytes means any later change is detectable by a stranger.
The false precision, in reverse	The black panel adds something too: a decimal place. At 5,000 paths that decimal is noise. Precision beyond the standard error is decoration that reads as authority.

A fair word about gated vendors: they may hold serious internal validation we cannot see, and their models may be excellent. That is exactly the problem this page is about. A buyer cannot act on evidence they are not shown — and neither can a regulator, a board, or a journalist. Apply the same test to us: every claim in the glass panel is an artefact on this page, not an assurance about one.

Why we built this instead of writing an argument

The case for transparency is easy to state and easy to nod along with, which makes it easy to ignore. Watching a single result get worse in front of you is harder to ignore. Nothing was faked to make the point: press run, change the inputs, run it again, and both panels move together, because they are one run.

The honest counter-argument is that a published method is copyable and a hidden one is not. We think that trade is worth making, and we have set out why — including the parts of it that are genuinely weak — on why this is hard to copy and how we compare on the axes that matter.

Do the same thing with your own decision

This page runs one model on one question. The platform runs the same machinery on business runway, career changes and major purchases, keeps the receipts, and scores the forecasts against what actually happened — including the misses. It is free, it runs in your browser, and your decision data does not leave your device.

Analyse a decision — free, in your browser

See the method and the accuracy record · Reproduce a result yourself · Verify a sealed record