Product AI agent · Competitive intel
Competitive-Intelligence AI Agent
Source every cell before it leaves the table: the page it was read from, the day it was fetched, and whether it implies a test — held for the named product marketing lead.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Marketing lead
- Fetch-stamped
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Sources the cell, does not say it aloud
In
- 01
A page is fetched logged out, and the URL, the fetch time and the account state are stored with it.
- 02
A cell is filled, and it carries the claim type it was given: fact, test-implying or puffery.
Reason
- 03
A benchmark cell implies a test, and under Castrol the burden inverts, so it is held for a method.
- 04
A source ages past its term, and each cell drawn from it is marked stale ahead of export.
- 05
A rival ships what the table denies, and the cross is pulled, because 43(a)(1)(B) reaches it.
Decide
- 06
A prospect forwards a confidential contract, and it is quarantined: 1839(5)(A) needs no use.
- 07
A login would be needed to read the page, and the crawl stops, because contract is the exposure.
Out
- 08
A cell is exported to a battlecard, and the comparison, the page and the fetch date go with it.
- 09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
Product statement
Fetching, sourcing and claim typing belong to the agent. Export belongs to a named marketing lead, and a cell already read aloud on a call is corrected, re-sourced and logged against the competitor.
Example workflow
One comparison, page to battlecard
- 1Source material fetchedPricing pages, changelogs, product docs, job ads, review sites or public filings
- 2Provenance recordedThe URL, the fetch timestamp, the account state at fetch and the competitor it names
- 3Cells drafted and typedThe comparison, the claim type, the substantiation pointer and confidence
- 4Controls appliedSource-age checks, claim-type checks, export blocks and drafting confidence
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing reaches a rep at any of them — the agent is sourcing, and the marketing lane opens at the export gate.
Goes to the named marketing lead to publish.
Adds a legal read first.
Marketing review
The cell is held with its source, its fetch date and the claim type it was given.
Publish · Append source · Send to legal review
Published — by the named marketing lead
- 6Enablement and CRM records updatedOnly where write access and publication policy allow it
- 7Outcome evaluatedSource currency, claim-type accuracy, legal amendments and what review found
Amendments
Each legal amendment is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Publishing a comparison claim to a customer.
- Approving a battlecard for the field.
- Deciding a benchmark cell is substantiated.
- Signing off comparison copy for a public page.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Fetch the public page and stamp the time of fetch.
- ✓Bind each cell to the source URL and to the date it was fetched.
- ✓Mark each cell as fact, as test-implying or as ordinary puffery.
- ✓Hold each test-implying cell back from export.
Nothing reaches a rep except by a named marketing lead, inside the agreed boundaries.
- Judging whether a source is reliable enough.
- Telling a prospect a competitor lacks a feature.
- Accepting a document a prospect forwarded.
- Changes to the claim rules or export thresholds.
Example output
One comparison cell, annotated
An arbitration award disclosed in March 2026 found a vendor comparative dashcam benchmark literally false; below is one cell exactly as the agent leaves it.
Comparison output · single cell
Illustrative example- Competitor
- Named rival, mid-market tier
- Recorded as
- Single sign-on shown as shipped
- Claim type
- Fact, not test-implying
- Source of record
- Pricing page, 3 August 2026
- Confidence
- Held unexported
- Held for
- The named marketing lead, by name
As received
Read from the competitor public page on the date stamped beside it — no disclaimer travels with it.
What the record holds
- Public pricing page
- Published changelog
- Product documentation
Why no export here
Whether a cell may be spoken to a buyer is the marketing lead call.
What the score decides
Below the configured threshold a cell gets a legal read before the lead sees it.
Action
PublishAppend sourceSend to legal reviewValue
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value lands
Value 01 – 04
Every comparison
From the page that carried it
Where the cell is used
A competitive landscape agent tiers inputs against the hallmarks of an unlawful exchange; this one is what happens after the table becomes a battlecard and a rep says the line out loud.
A cell becomes a claim
Repeat it to a named prospect about a named competitor and it becomes commercial advertising. Internal use only is a data-loss control, not a defence. And in the EU, under Directive 2006/114/EC Art. 4, a cell the reader cannot verify is unlawful even when true.
What was checked, and not found
No statute and no tort was found imposing a free-standing duty to be accurate about a competitor, and nothing in Annex III of the EU AI Act reaches this agent. Reverse engineering sits outside improper means at 18 U.S.C. 1839(6)(B), and internal analysis is unregulated however wrong.
Build an evidence trail
The comparison, the page it was read from and the date it was fetched stay together.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Competitor public sources
- Pricing pages
- changelogs
- Documentation, job ads, status pages
Review and analyst sites
- G2
- TrustRadius
- Capterra
- Public review text and ratings
Sales and field intelligence
- Salesforce
- HubSpot
- Gong
- Win-loss records and call transcripts
Agent
Competitive intelligence
- Reads the page
- Fills the cell
- Holds for the lead
Enablement and CRM
- Highspot
- Seismic
- Showpad
- Battlecards and CRM competitor fields
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six checkpoints between the model and the field
Six checkpoints on one road, the last the strictest. What travels on is set out in the map below.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Test whether a cell may stand
- L3
- Leaves the export to a named marketing lead
- L4 – L5
- Keep the comparison and the fetch behind it
- L6
- Withholds the cell when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate the whole sourcing chain — not only the cell that comes out.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the line a rep says on a call
- E1Final-output evaluationDid the cell carry the page, the fetch date and the claim type?
- E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right competitor, the right page and the live version?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct competitor and the correct cell?
- E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence cells actually attract more legal amendments?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific claim types?
- E6Business outcomeHow many cells needed an amendment before the lead exported them?
Floor — the comparison a competitor reads back
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes, each placed where it first becomes visible.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Retrieval
1 mode
- QG-03
Stale page read
The page read is not the one now published.
Stage gathers
The pages, the fetch times and the account state
02 · Reasoning
2 modes
- QG-04
Synthesised benchmark
A number appears with no test behind it.
- QG-06
Hallucinated negative
A defect is asserted that no source states.
Stage proposes
The comparison, the claim type and the source
03 · Tool / write
2 modes
- QG-02
Unsourced cell exported
A cell leaves without the legal read.
- QG-05
Cell bound to wrong rival
The claim is filed against another rival.
Stage writes
Only where write access and approval policy allow it
04 · Output
1 mode
- QG-01
Exported, provenance unrecorded
The battlecard shows the cell but not its source.
Stage returns
The line a rep reads out on a customer call
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- QG-07
Silent source drift
A page changes while the stored cell keeps the old reading.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, claim rules and source dates
- Sev-1 · a claim exported with no source at all
- Sev-2 · a stale cell reaches a battlecard
- Sev-3 · a source degrades, the cell is held
Affected slices
Benchmark cells absorb the amendments
A claim-level provenance figure can read clean while benchmark and performance cells carry most of the legal amendments. Nestack reports the amendment rate by claim type, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark and performance cells | 10.3% | 3.7× | Review | |
| Security and compliance cells | 7.3% | 2.6× | Review | |
| Pricing and packaging cells | 4.6% | 1.7× | Watch | |
| Feature-presence cells | 2.1% | 0.8× | Normal |
Bar: amendment-rate lift vs. feature-presence baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
A cross that stopped being true
A cycle shuts when the stale mark exported to a battlecard is a regression case. That suite is what the next table published is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Amendment rate rises on benchmark and performance cells.
- 02
Diagnose
The cross in the SSO row, four months after they shipped it and read aloud on a Tuesday call, is traced back until one cause stands alone.
- 03
Improve
Changes ship numbered, and the comparisons behind them travel attached.
- 04
Verify
Each touched comparison case is run again, and one red holds it back.
- 05
Learn
The case is kept, and the sourcing rules are amended in that same commit.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. The next table is published against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, claim sourcing, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Comparison scope and automation-boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Competitor and public source assessment.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Cell-to-battlecard and provenance-coverage mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Competitor source ingestion.Week 2
- 05Cell, source and claim-type binding.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Confidence scoring and legal routing.Week 3
- 07Marketing lead export workflow.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Enablement-system integration.Week 5
- 09Sourcing and claim cases.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Guardrails and publication controls.Week 4
- 11Fetch-trail instrumentation.Week 5, Week 6
- 12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.Week 6
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel
Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
| Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier | PilotOne competitor, one quarter | ProductionProduction enablement workflow | AdvancedMultiple competitors / markets |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Cell sourcing to your claim rules | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Named marketing lead export | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Competitor-source baseline | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Reporting by claim type | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Legal review workflow in your systems | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Approved write-back | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Crawl-and-enablement integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Multi-source substantiation | — | — | ✓ |
| Cross-market battlecard packs | — | — | ✓ |
| Large competitor sets | — | — | ✓ |
| Multi-market comparison controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, competitor coverage, approval controls and deployment requirements.
- Separate from build
- Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bring
We build with it
01Your live competitors and the claims you make about each
→Claim-rule capture and provenance design
Week 102Representative battlecards and comparison tables
→Source binding, claim typing and the competitor baseline
Week 203Your publication path and the leads it names
→Claim-rule mapping, source binding and the automation boundary
Week 104Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports
→Competitor and public source assessment, then integration setup
Week 205Cells you would not want deposed on
→Claim cases and failure-mode testing
Week 406What no table may imply
→Confidence scoring, legal routing, guardrails and export controls
Week 307A named marketing lead who exports the cell
→Export approval workflow, then pilot and production validation
Weeks 5–6
Nothing else is required
Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
A band is exactly as wide as its phase costs, so week five shows a pair where a blank would be neater.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Claim-rule discovery, provenance design and the automation boundary
W2Source integration and the competitor-source baseline
W3Sourcing workflow, claim typing and export release controls
W4Evaluation suite, claim cases and failure-mode testing
W5Enablement integration, pilot battlecards and targeted corrections
W6One competitive quarter run under the product marketing lead, then Agent Care handover
- Reading the band
- A bar sits on the weeks its work is actually named in, and the week five pair is real.
- At the end of W6
- Once the sourcing record validates, Agent Care takes the agent on.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Product AI agent
Build a competitive-intelligence agent around the cell your last battlecard could not source.
Show us one battlecard your reps read from and the sources behind its cells. The competitor named in it is the plaintiff, with standing, subpoena power and a commercial motive. NAD is cheaper still. A cell nobody can source comes back as an amendment.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your live competitors
- Marketing lead
- Fetch-stamped
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Competitive intelligence
AGT-PRD-04 · Agent Care available after launch