Skip to content
LEXUNGet your KeyRun a simulation
Defensibility

Anyone can copy the interface. The scoring record has to be earned in public.

The screen is imitable in a weekend. The asset underneath starts accruing on day one and cannot be back-dated. This page sets out what that asset consists of, what part of it exists in the code today, what part only accumulates with elapsed time, and what is still unbuilt. Where the honest number is zero, the zero is printed. If you would rather see the difference than read about it, run one simulation and watch it delivered two ways.

The uncomfortable number first. LEXUN’s decision models have resolved zero outcomes. Six judgement forecasts on the public register have been resolved and scored, and not one of them is evidence about the models: no runway, career or opportunity forecast has met reality yet. A model calibration record with nothing in it is worth nothing, and we are not going to dress that up. It is on this page because the same property that makes the record worthless today is what makes it a moat later: it can only be filled in forwards, at one day per day, by us and by every competitor alike.

The state of the record today

Days of record
0
The clock starts at the first frozen public forecast.
Resolved outcomes
0
Zero is the only honest number on day one.
Independent re-runs
Not counted
There is no server on which to count them.
Model versions shipped
7
Across three decision models, each still reproducible.

Sources, in order: the first six entries were published to the public forecast register on 14 August 2026 and none has yet reached its resolution date, so the elapsed-time count is zero rather than an estimate. Outcome resolution happens in the visitor's own browser and is not transmitted, so the count we can honestly publish for our own public forecasts is zero. Re-runs happen on other people's machines with nothing reported back, which is a deliberate architectural choice and therefore permanently uncountable — reporting a number here would mean we had started collecting one. The four shipped model versions are runway@1.0.0, career@1.0.0, career@1.1.0 and opportunity@1.0.0, each dated in the changelog.

What the defence consists of

Each item below carries one of three labels. They mean different things and are not interchangeable.

LIVE Working in the shipped code now — you can check it yourself today. COMPOUNDING The mechanism is built; its value is a function of elapsed time and currently near zero. PLANNED Not built. Named here so it cannot later be claimed as though it always existed.

Compounding track record

COMPOUNDING

Every forecast is written with its resolution criterion frozen before the result is seen, and scored with a Brier score once the criterion resolves. The machinery is live and the register opened with ten frozen forecasts on 14 August 2026; the scored record accumulates only as criteria resolve, and the register page shows its current state.

Why it is hard to copy: a competitor shipping tomorrow also starts at zero resolved forecasts. History is the one input that cannot be bought, hired, funded or accelerated. Whoever starts scoring first stays that far ahead for as long as both keep scoring.

Reproducibility as a standard

LIVE

Every result carries the model name and version, the frozen inputs, the random seed and a SHA-256 receipt over the canonical bytes of the whole thing. Anyone can re-run it and get the identical number, or paste the receipt into the verifier and watch their own browser recompute the hash.

Why it is hard to copy: the format is trivially copyable and that is the point. Once results circulate as artefacts that anyone can re-run, the format becomes the thing people cite, and citation is distribution. A competitor adopting it is adopting our standard; a competitor refusing it is publishing numbers nobody can check.

Calibration flywheel

COMPOUNDING

Each resolved outcome on the public register sharpens the calibration LEXUN publishes for that domain, and each outcome a person resolves in their own workspace sharpens the calibration they see — on their own device, where it stays. What does not happen, and cannot with this architecture, is a private decision improving the model for anybody else: saved decisions and outcomes are encrypted locally and never transmitted as records (the optional Copilot receives only what a person types or a filtered result summary), so there is no corpus of customer outcomes here and no flywheel that turns usage into a better global prior. Saying otherwise would be the one claim on this page that the privacy notice forbids. What compounds is the public record and each user’s own history — and if consented, anonymised outcome aggregation is ever built, it will be announced as a change to what leaves your device, not shipped as a side effect. The Accuracy Centre refuses to display an accuracy figure for any domain with fewer than ten resolved outcomes, which today means every domain.

Why it is hard to copy: the improvement loop runs on resolved outcomes, and resolved outcomes only exist after real decisions have played out in real time. Capital shortens almost every other path in software. It does not shorten this one.

Local-first by architecture

LIVE

The simulation runs in the visitor's browser. Decision data is held in that browser's own storage and is never transmitted; the optional Copilot is the one exception, and it receives only what a person deliberately types or a filtered result summary. Running one needs no Key; keeping one needs a LEXUN Key, which is a locally derived passcode rather than an account — there is no server session, no user directory and no server-side copy of any decision to subpoena, leak or sell.

Why it is hard to copy: this is structural, not a policy line in a privacy notice. Anyone running inference server-side cannot retrofit "there is no server copy" without rebuilding the product, and any competitor whose business model depends on holding the data cannot make the claim at all.

Accumulated context, not lock-in

COMPOUNDING

Assumption registers, decision templates and audit trails deepen inside a team over years. All of it exports as a .lexun package, and the package is documented rather than obfuscated, so leaving costs one click.

Why it is hard to copy: the fact that the exit is free is exactly why a team is willing to put years of real reasoning in. A rival can copy the export format in an afternoon and still not have the years.

Versioned and auditable

LIVE

Every result carries the version of the model that produced it. Audit events are hash-chained, so an entry cannot be edited, back-dated, reordered or removed without the chain reporting it. The engine ships with 711 automated checks, all currently passing, including tests that deliberately tamper with a sealed record and assert that the tamper is caught.

Why it is hard to copy: any buyer with a compliance function requires this before they can use a number in a decision they have to defend. It is a discipline that has to be demonstrated over releases rather than claimed in a sales deck, and the demonstration takes exactly as long as it takes.

Public forecast register

PLANNED

Five dated, frozen, publicly scored predictions per month, with misses left up permanently. The first six entries were frozen on 14 August 2026 and the earliest met reality within days — the counters above read straight from the ledger, misses included, and grow only as criteria resolve.

Why it matters here: this is the mechanism that converts elapsed time into the track record described at the top. Until the first entry publishes, the compounding items on this page are a design, not an asset.

What is not a moat

The mathematics. Monte-Carlo simulation is public, well over half a century old, and implementable by a competent engineer in a day. The mulberry32 generator and the Box–Muller transform this engine uses are textbook. Nothing about the numerical method is proprietary and we do not claim it is.

Nor is the interface, the wording, the colour palette, the animation or the brand. All of it is copyable, some of it in a weekend. The defence is scoring, receipts and elapsed time.

What would break it

Stated plainly, because a defensibility page that lists only strengths is marketing.

  • Publishing forecasts and then quietly failing to resolve them. The record only compounds if the losses are scored as diligently as the wins.
  • Moving inference to a server for convenience or for a feature that seems worth it. That would forfeit the local-first claim permanently, and no amount of policy language would restore it.
  • A competitor starting the same public scoring discipline and being more rigorous about it. This is the honest competitive risk, and there is no technical barrier stopping them.
  • Loosening the display gates under commercial pressure — showing an accuracy figure on a handful of resolved outcomes because a customer asked for one. The gates are only worth something while they are inconvenient.

Check any of this yourself

None of the above should be taken on trust, which is the entire argument. Verify a receipt or a package in your own browser. Re-run a published result from its seed and inputs and compare the identifier. Read the honesty rules and their display gates, the dated version history, or the trust page for what is measured and what is not. If you find a claim on this site that is not backed by something you can check, tell us and it comes down.

Verify a result Read the honesty rules