Pocket Geiger reads what the counterparty actually committed to — not what it appears they committed to. Two simultaneous reads: Party A's position, Party B's position. The gap between them is a specific, citable number. Neither a lawyer nor standard contract review produces this in under 90 seconds.
Not sure which tier fits? Use the tabs above — each one is tuned to how that kind of buyer actually uses the instrument.
—
Annual value
$799
Instrument cost
—
Net gain
Representative value by tier — click to preview, then tune the numbers below to your own situation.
Standard
$799
~10 agreements/yr
Premium
$999
~25 agreements/yr
Dealmaker
$1,999
~15 deals, both instruments
Maestro
$4,000
~8 orchestrations/yr
Your deal flow
How active are you with material agreements each year?
Material agreements per year10
Your professional time value ($/hr)
Your industry
Typical agreement length
Longer agreements take longer to review manually — this is where PGB saves the most time.
Short
≤5,000 words
Standard
5–15k words
Long
15–40k words
Extended
40k+ words
Equation 1 — Litigation risk
Value = agreements × gap probability × your industry's dispute rate × dispute cost
The US median contract dispute costs $91,000 (Rocket Lawyer, 2024) — that's the national baseline, not your number. Dispute rates vary sharply by industry: 9% average across all contracts, but 20.7% in construction and engineering (IACCM). Select your industry above to use a defensible, sourced rate instead of a generic guess.
—
Your honest assessment of dispute risk20%
Before you answer low: companies led by overconfident executives are 33% more likely to face litigation, not less (Stevens Institute of Technology). Most people rate their own risk as below-average — most people can't be right about that. The industry rate you selected above is the sourced starting point; adjust from there, not from instinct.
Your typical dispute cost ($) — US median $91,000
Equation 2 — Direct savings
Value = agreements × gap probability × your direct-savings figure
Not just a fix cost — this covers time-to-close saved, negotiation cycles avoided, and trust preserved when a gap is caught before it damages the relationship. An early user's own agreement produced $9,000 in direct savings from one read. Windows of opportunity close; trust, once lost, is expensive to rebuild. Use your own number if you have one — this default reflects a real result, not an arbitrary guess.
—
Direct savings per agreement — time, cycles, trust ($)
Equation 3 — Professional time
Value = agreements × hours saved (scales with document length) × hourly rate
Pocket Geiger surfaces accountability gaps in 90 seconds regardless of length. A manual review takes 2–8 hours depending on document length — longer agreements save you more time, not less.
—
Decision Architecture layer
Equation 4 — Value = deal value × (recovery probability with corrected framing − current probability)
Detects whether an agreement or options analysis was structured to steer your evaluation before you reached the operative terms. Correcting the frame only ever raises your true odds — it can't lower them, because you can't lose ground you never actually had.
Add Decision Architecture layer
Premium tier and above
Six patterns detected
Anchor language
A reference point set before you've said anything — your negotiation starts from their number.
Loss framing
Obligations presented as losses you'd incur by deviating, not benefits you gain by accepting.
Commitment traps
Your own past investment used as leverage to make walking away feel costlier than it is.
Conformity claims
"Everyone else accepted this" — making your objection look like the exception.
Cooked baseline
Their preferred position presented as the objective standard, compared against a strawman.
Decision Closure
Urgency language that forecloses the decision to sign before you've actually agreed to anything.
Value of deal seeking approval ($)
Current approval probability — without PG20%
The same bias applies here. If your honest answer is "high" — most people's is, before anything's been checked. Overconfident executives are 33% more likely to face litigation, not less (Stevens Institute). A high number here means the DA layer has less room to help you — that's a fine outcome if it's true. It's a costly one to assume without checking.
Improvement from corrected framing+35 points
Result: 55% approval probability with corrected framing — this is computed, not a separate input. It cannot fall below your current probability; correcting a frame only ever adds ground, never removes it.
Breakdown
Litigation risk reduction—
Direct savings — time, cycles, trust—
Professional time savings—
Decision Architecture — deal value delta—
Instrument cost−$799
Your subscription includes
50 reads / year
Every agreement length included — short or long, it's one read against your allowance. Findings are never withheld once computed — if you're at your limit, you'll see an upgrade option, not a blocked result.
"Common ground in deals with no BS language builds trust."
— an early Dealmaker user, September 2026
US median dispute cost: $91,000 (Rocket Lawyer 2024) · Industry dispute rates: IACCM · Overconfidence/litigation link: Stevens Institute of Technology
Pocket Geiger surfaces what the counterparty actually committed to — not what it appears they committed to. cnvxty.com · @cnvxty