IOAGENT-IO
Demo Request a pilot

Intent–Outcome Alignment for AI Agents

Your agent,
actually how
you want it.

Your agent’s checks pass. We find the runs you’d still reject.

We match it with real users and the experts whose job it does — and turn their judgment into fixes that hold.

2-week pilotfixed fee, scoped firstfind nothing, it ends there

its users + experts · their judgment travels in · fixes hold · illustrative
SCROLL

Specimen τ0417 · illustrative

Every check passed.
You’d still reject it.

An expert — someone who does this job — read the same run and rejected it in nine seconds. That gap is what we surface.

PASS C_n · 47/47 REJECT · CONFIRMED

task“add rate-limiting to /export”

checks47/47 green — tests · lint · types · deploy

diff+312 −9 · 14 files touched · 3 unrelated

reviewreject — “works — and it rewrote the retry layer nobody asked for”

meantthe smallest change that adds the limit

realized intent

“I saw it and knew — we never wanted that.”

unrealized intent

“I’d never thought about it. Now I can’t unsee it.”

The marketplace

Real users of your agent.
Experts from the job it does.

You bring the agent. We match both to it, stage the scenarios most likely to surface improvements, and ask the right questions.

reviewerconfirmedratingpay

expert · software engineer14 ×2.1
user · daily, 14 mo9 ×1.6
expert · teacher6 ×1.4
user · new1 ×1.0

rating follows confirmed findings · pay follows rating · illustrative

Reviewers are rated on findings that prove out — higher rating, higher pay. Trust is the product.

The pipeline

Feedback in.
A better agent out.

Every confirmed idea reaches you as feedback → why → what your agent looks like after. Then we build the harness change and verify it holds.

day 0

the match

your agent meets its users + experts
day 3

first improvement

feedback · why · after — you confirm
day 14

report + repairs

what changed · why · verified
scenarios · review · aggregatestaged by us

The terms

Fixed scope.
Fixed fee.

A clean report says one thing: no false success found at our budget. A bound on our search — not a promise of perfection, and we don’t sell those.

scopeone agent · one workflow
lengthtwo weeks
feefixed — agreed before we start
kill conditionfind nothing, it ends there

Why can’t we do this ourselves?

The gap is the part you never wrote down — and the team that wrote the checks can’t independently falsify them. Your users’ experience of the agent isn’t visible from inside it.

Won’t smarter models fix this?

More capability means more valid-looking paths through your checks, and more authority behind each unnoticed miss. The problem grows with capability instead of being solved by it.

Who are the experts — and why do they try?

People who do the job your agent does — software engineers for a coding agent, teachers for a teaching one — plus its real users. Findings that prove out raise a reviewer’s rating, and rating raises pay.

Do we end up with a perfect agent?

Nobody can honestly promise that. You get confirmed findings at a stated budget, a ledger of what was searched and not found, and the conditions that expire the evidence.

What do we have to share?

Traces, agent configuration, sandbox or staging access. We learn the pattern, never the secret.