NativeThe offer
A pilot puts the evidence
in front of the decision.
Every enterprise has a decision waiting on evidence. Defined scope, real output, and a path to expand. Here is what you are agreeing to before you give anyone your email address.
Three stages, and a decision at the end of them.
01Scope
You name the decision.
One decision waiting on evidence, and the audience it turns on. That sentence is the whole scoping conversation. It sets what gets built, what gets asked, and what the pilot has to produce to have been worth running.
02Build
About four weeks, from the day your data lands.
The clock starts when Native has everything, not when the agreement is signed, so a slow data handoff on your side does not quietly consume the window. Where a pilot runs on the corpus already built, there is no handoff to wait on.
03Output
A real result, not a demonstration.
Output against the decision you named, with the method visible and the parity benchmark attached, in a form you can take into the room where the decision gets made. Then a path to expand, or not.
What you do not have to do first
- No first-party data required to start
- A pilot can run against the twins already built. Where you do bring your own data, it stays yours, and your PII never reaches a twin.
- No survey programming
- Nothing to field, nothing to script, no panel to source. The questions go to twins already built and benchmarked.
A pilot is governed by the applicable SOW. Scope, timing, data handling and commercial terms are confirmed there. For a security questionnaire, report access or a DPA review, start with Security, Privacy & Compliance.
Tell us the decision.
Five fields. It reaches the Native AI team.
Still evaluating rather than committing? The argument is on the homepage, the method is on Validation, and neither one sits behind this form.
Not ready to name a decision yet.
What a twin is assembled from, how it is validated, and one full run published exactly as it came back.
See how a twin is built