The executive decision problem
At the senior executive level, the bottleneck is not information — it is structured synthesis under conditions of genuine uncertainty. The decisions that matter carry irreversible consequences, involve competing stakeholder interests, and are made with incomplete data under time pressure.
Most AI tools address a different problem. They make information retrieval faster. They make drafting more efficient. They are genuinely useful for execution-layer work. But they were not designed for the specific challenge of high-stakes decisions: synthesizing multiple expert perspectives, surfacing where the analysis is weak, and producing a structured recommendation that can be defended to a board, a regulator, or a counterparty.
MyCorum.ai was designed specifically for this problem.
What Le Corum provides that a single AI cannot
When an executive asks a single AI system for analysis on a strategic question, they receive one perspective — sophisticated, articulate, and structurally unable to disagree with itself. The system cannot surface its own blind spots. It cannot tell you where the analysis is thin. It cannot maintain a dissenting position after being challenged.
Le Corum deploys five independent minds on your question simultaneously. Each operates with a different analytical mandate: structural and financial rigor, strategic and competitive positioning, technical and operational feasibility, ethical and regulatory risk, and adversarial challenge. They analyze independently, then confront each other across multiple structured rounds.
The output is not a report. It is a structured verdict: a recommendation (GO, PIVOT, or STOP), a decision matrix with per-dimension verdicts, a confidence score from 0 to 10, a structured action plan with owner and deadline per step, and — critically — a Minority Report if any mind maintained a dissenting position after full deliberation.
The Minority Report is the executive differentiator
In most organizational decision processes, dissenting views are surfaced in the room and then disappear. The person who disagreed either comes around or stays quiet. The final recommendation reflects consensus — but that consensus may have been shaped by hierarchy, by recency bias, or by the simple human discomfort of sustained disagreement.
Le Corum is immune to these dynamics. The Contrarian persona is programmed to find the weaknesses in the emerging consensus. The anti-convergence mechanism triggers automatically when agreement forms too quickly. And if, after all rounds, one mind still disagrees — that position is preserved in full in the Minority Report, with its confidence score and the specific conditions that would make it correct.
An executive reading a Corum Synthesis gets what a well-functioning board process is supposed to provide: a structured recommendation with the strongest dissenting view explicitly presented, so the final decision reflects genuine deliberation rather than managed consensus.
Governance and accountability
Regulators, boards, and counterparties increasingly require that AI-assisted decisions be explainable and auditable. The question is no longer whether AI was involved in a decision — it often is, at some level — but whether the use of AI can be demonstrated to have been responsible.
Every Corum Synthesis is a complete decision record: the independent analyses of each mind, the confrontation rounds, the confidence score with its breakdown components, the sources used (labelled as verified, estimated, or contextual), the minority positions, and the falsification conditions. This record is not generated after the fact — it is the output of the deliberation process itself.
For legal professionals, financial advisors, and regulated-industry executives, this audit trail has direct professional relevance. "The AI told me so" is not a defense. "Le Corum deliberated, produced a confidence score of 8.1/10, identified one dissenting position and two information gaps, and the recommendation survived adversarial challenge across four rounds" is a defensible position.
Practical use cases at the executive level
The pricing is designed for executive use
A Challenge deliberation — the right mode for most strategic decisions — costs between $2 and $3.50 in credits. An Expert deliberation — up to six adaptive rounds, full report, HITL integration — costs between $3 and $8. For decisions whose consequences are measured in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, the cost of a rigorous deliberation is negligible.
The Team Plan at $499/month is designed for executive teams: multiple users, shared deliberation history so the organization learns from its decisions over time, and full MCP integration for connecting Le Corum to existing workflows and systems.