Four real runs · nothing cut

Four real reports.
One of them judged us.

A landing page, an ad campaign, an email send, and an audience study. These are the full reports a customer gets. One is our own homepage. The simulation found five things broken on it. No login. Nothing cut.

No login· No form· Experiment AN-90670518· Run 12 August 2026
The conflict graph from WhyUser's simulation of its own homepage: five committee roles, seven handoffs, two of which snap. The End User cannot hand the case to the Technical Decision Maker without documentation, and the Champion cannot hand it to the Economic Buyer without inspectable proof.
whyuser.com · 50 agents · 5 roles · 3 behavioural states · 45 of 50 runs clicked forward · 0 submitted · 2 of 7 handoffs snapped
The library

Pick one. Open it. Nothing is gated.

Each one is the full interactive report. Click any finding, role or handoff to open its record.

Committee Simulation · landing page

whyuser.com, judged by its own instrument

Fifty agents. Five roles. All five ended up convinced. Forty-five of fifty clicked forward. None converted, because two of seven handoffs snapped. It told us our nav was hard to scan and our proof was thin.

Open report
Email Simulation · 360 agents

The subject line worked. The landing did not.

A compliance announcement pulled clicks, then lost people on arrival. One link carried 100 readers on and lost 39. Another got no clicks at all. No preheader was set, so the inbox preview fell back to the greeting.

Open report
Audience Discovery · 32 subverticals

Every blocked buyer held the budget or the veto.

Thirty of 140 titles cleared verification. Of the 17 that scored too low to target, 15 were economic buyers and 2 were guardians. Those are the two roles that stop deals.

Open report
Ad Simulation · 180 agents

The ad did its job. The page asked for too much.

Two LinkedIn creatives, read by three buyers across three moods. Both handed the click a page that kept their promise. Then the page asked for a demo. The ad had promised something far smaller. That gap, not the creative, was the drag.

Open report
Note: Customer runs are anonymised to Acme Corp, because a targeting map and a campaign's click data belong to the customer.
Report one · whyuser.com

Report one: everybody was convinced. Nobody could hand it on.

All five roles ended Convinced, each at intent 7 out of 10. Every one understood the product. Forty-five of fifty passes clicked forward.

None converted. Two of the seven handoffs between roles snapped. The End User had no docs to send the Technical Decision Maker. The Champion had no proof to send the Economic Buyer.

No single role failed. An average would have scored this page a winner. That is the exact failure we built the product to catch, and we had it on our own homepage.

Conflict graph · whyuser.com 2 of 7 snap
End User → ChampionHOLDS
End User → Technical Decision MakerSNAPS · no docs evidence
End User → Economic BuyerHOLDS
Champion → Technical Decision MakerHOLDS
Champion → Economic BuyerSNAPS · no proof evidence
Technical Decision Maker → Economic BuyerHOLDS
Security Guardian → Economic BuyerHOLDS
Findings

Four things working. Four broken.

Each finding is tagged to the zone of the page it came from, carries the verbatim line the buyer was looking at, and traces back to a trait compiled before the page was ever opened.

Working

W1 · The value proposition lands

All five roles picked up on determinism and lineage as what makes an output defensible in a review.

W2 · Evaluation routes exist

Three roles found their own way to the proof pages without being led there.

W3 · Procurement path is discoverable

Security and DPA sat in the footer. That calmed the Economic Buyer and the Security Guardian.

W4 · Category clarity

Roles knew what the product was and when to use it, without scrolling.

Broken

B1 · Proof is claims-first

We stated our accuracy. We gave no fast way to check it. All five roles reacted.

“Trusted by demand gen teams at + NDA design partners”
Champion, Staff Marketing Ops Manager

B2 · The navigation is hard to scan

Four of five roles said the top nav was hard to scan.

“Multiple Request Access CTAs and many competing nav links create mild choice paralysis.”
Champion

B3 · Sales-led gating dominates

We asked five times and offered nothing to look at. Lots of clicks. No submits.

B4 · Security and pricing surface too late

Both were on the site. Neither was above the fold.

“Hero states what the product does… but says nothing about SOC 2, logs, or DPA up front.”
Security Guardian, Director of Security

The fix queue

Ranked against the broken handoffs, not against page order.

Fixes are ranked by which snapped handoff each one reconnects, not by where they sit on the page. We shipped all five.

#FixClosesStatus
1 Add a self-serve preview path beside Request Access. Cut repeated CTAs to one primary and one secondary. B4 SHIPPED this page
2 Give the technical material a route from the header, so the champion can find and forward it. B3 · B2 SHIPPED Architecture & data flow, under Why WhyUser
3 Add an above-fold proof strip: logos and a quantified metric, each linking to an inspectable artifact. B1 SHIPPED homepage
4 Collapse the top navigation into five scannable buckets. B2 SHIPPED sitewide
5 Make Security and Pricing first-class nav items, with an above-fold micro-row. B4 SHIPPED Pricing
Your turn

Now point it at your page.

Send us the next campaign you have going live. You get the role that blocks it, the proof that is missing, and a ranked list of fixes. About thirty minutes, from a URL.

Plans from $12k/year · see pricing and credits