Decision analysis
SwingFactor is a decision analysis platform. It takes a hard question apart into the claims it rests on, the evidence for and against each, and the uncertain numbers it turns on — then shows you what could change the choice, and what to find out before you make it.
Free to read and challenge · seven-day free trial to ask your own · runs in your browser
How it works
SwingFactor drafts. A person decides what stands.
Say what you are deciding and why, the options on the table, the scenarios that could play out, the factors to compare the options on, and the sources you already trust.
SwingFactor drafts the claims, the evidence and what each claim rests on. You accept, reject or correct each part — nothing counts until you do.
What could change the choice, and what is still open: things to find out, things to build or test, and things that are yours to decide.
The numbers it turns on
Every option is compared on the same factors, and each claim shows what it rests on. Where people disagree about an uncertain number, each party’s range is kept apart rather than averaged, and the threshold — the value at which a consequence changes — is marked. This part is computed, not generated: the same accepted model gives the same result every time.
SwingFactor does not rank what is left open. Tell it what you are short of — time, money, people, access, a deadline — and it will help you order them, but the order is yours.
What is left open is sorted by what it would take to close:
SwingFactor proposes; you accept
SwingFactor drafts the options, the claims, the evidence from your own sources and from research, each option’s answer on each factor, and the uncertain numbers with their ranges and thresholds, then audits its own work as a sceptic would. Everything arrives proposed.
SwingFactor drafts the model of a question with AI. To do that, it sends the question and its sources to an AI provider outside the UK to read. Everything it drafts arrives proposed, and nothing counts until a person has accepted it. Where AKdev uses a model.
It is told never to invent a figure, a source, a quotation or a page, and to test every option as hard as the others. Where it suggests a number of its own, the number says so.
How it holds up
A model of a decision is only useful if someone can check it.
The question, taken apart
A decision is broken into the claims it rests on: statements whose truth would change which option you prefer. Each is judged on its own terms — what kind of claim it is, how well it stands up, how strong its evidence is — and those judgements are never merged into one score.
Where every claim comes from
Evidence supports, contradicts or qualifies a claim, and carries its source, the place in the source, who asserted it and any interest they declared. Evidence recorded as sharing an origin counts once, however many times it is repeated, and anyone who can read the question can challenge an origin that was missed.
Objections, answered on the record
Anyone who can read a question can object to any part of it. An editor resolves each challenge with a response, and records whether it was right — including the ones that were right but not adopted.
Decisions you can look back on
Every change is kept with who made it, when and why. Freeze the model under a name, compare two snapshots item by item, and record the decision against the snapshot it was made on — so what you knew at the time is read from the record, not remembered.
FAQ
What it is, what it costs and what it will not do.
Seven-day free trial
Take the choice you are least sure of, and see what it actually depends on.