We are the only product that uses quantitative time-series snapshot voting to tell couples and two-person partnerships how aligned they actually are.

The phrase is technical for a reason. Each word is doing work. Here is what each one means in practice.

Quantitative. Your daily vote is a number, not a paragraph. Yes is +1, No is −1, Strong Yes is +2, Strong No is −2 (and so on for the other formats). The number is what the analysis on the final day reads. The optional note you write underneath is read separately and clustered into themes. Numbers and themes, together, are what produce the verdict.

Time-series. Your votes are an ordered sequence across days, not a single value averaged at the end. The order matters. A trajectory that rises from Lean No to Strong Yes is a different decision from one that holds Strong Yes for the whole period; both end with a Yes verdict, but they are not the same answer. The product preserves the order, and the analysis treats it as a first-class signal.

Snapshot. Each evening's vote is a snapshot of where you stand on that one evening, in that one mood, after that one day. It is not the truth about the whole decision. It is an honest record of where you are tonight, knowing that the question will come back tomorrow night, and the night after that, until the period closes.

Voting. One tap. One button. Plus an optional sentence if a thought has landed. That is the entire daily interaction. The vote is sealed; your partner sees only that you voted, never which way. Less than thirty seconds a day.

Put together: every evening, both of you take a private numerical snapshot of where you stand on the same question, the ordered sequence of those snapshots is the time series, and the analysis reads the whole series on the final day. That is the entire product, in one sentence.

Every evening, at a time you set during composition (after dinner, before bed, during your walk home, on your commute), you receive a single private prompt. You tap one button. You can stop there. The vote takes between five and ten seconds if you do not write a note, between fifteen and forty seconds if you write a sentence, and a couple of minutes if a paragraph has landed.

The whole product depends on the daily interaction being light enough to do honestly. If voting felt like work, the data underneath the verdict would not be honest. Thirty days × thirty seconds is fifteen minutes of total interaction across a thirty-day decision. The verdict you read on the kitchen bench on day thirty is the produce of fifteen minutes of voting, plus whatever notes you wrote across those evenings.

You set the time of day in your settings. The system sends a single gentle prompt at that time, locally, in your time zone, with daylight saving handled. You can vote on the web, on iOS, on Android, or by replying to the email prompt directly. The product meets you where you already are at the time you have already chosen.

Most decision tools, for couples, for teams, for individuals, capture a single response at a single moment. A relationship-quality survey asks you once. A decision matrix is filled in once. A weighted-scoring spreadsheet is opened on a Saturday afternoon and the column totals are read on the same Saturday afternoon. A couples-app prompt is answered tonight and forgotten by Tuesday. A therapy session is the conversation in the room, on the day you scheduled it.

The unit of measurement is always the same: one snapshot, on one day, in one mood. The analysis at the end is an average or a sum across that one snapshot. The shape of how you got there is invisible, because there is no shape to read.

Counsel.day is the only product that uses the time series itself as the unit. We do not ask once and call that an alignment score. We ask thirty times (or ninety, or three hundred and sixty-five), in private, on different days, in different moods, after different kinds of days, and we read the whole series at the end. The verdict on the final day is not an average. It is a reading of the shape of the decision, made by a person and made by their partner, across actual time.

No other product in the category captures the time series. The five-layer analysis that arrives on day thirty is impossible without it, and we are the only product that captures it.

Because the time series exists, the analysis on the final day can read five things that no single survey or single conversation can produce:

The agreement rate, with its shape across the period (rising from 33% in week one to 86% in week four, for example) rather than a single yes/no agreement on a single evening.

The conviction trajectory, for each of you, plotted day by day, so the shape of consolidation, drift, or anchoring is visible. A rising trajectory tells you the position is durable; a flat trajectory with mood-driven spikes tells you the position is anchored with reactions to specific stimuli; a falling trajectory tells you something is moving and probably should not be acted on yet.

The themes, extracted from every note both of you wrote, clustered, with frequency counts per participant. These are the things you kept returning to across the period, not the things you happened to say at one dinner.

The synthesis, a one-paragraph reading of the underlying axis of your disagreement, beneath the surface question. "You are not split on whether to move; you are split on what you are afraid of losing." The synthesis is impossible to produce without the themes, which are impossible to produce without the notes, which are impossible to gather honestly without the privacy and the duration that come before them.

The conversation prompt, a single specific concrete question for the conversation that follows. Sized to be answerable in one sitting because all of the structural work has already been done by the time you read it.

None of these are reachable from a single snapshot. All of them are reachable from a series. The series is the whole product.

The product is built around two participants in a decision held jointly. That is the only structural requirement. Anyone who fits that shape can use it:

Any couple. Married, unmarried, dating, separated and trying again, polyamorous, same-sex, different-sex, in their twenties, in their seventies, with children or without. The decision tool is the same; the relationship structure is your business, not ours. Pronouns and names are set by each participant at composition.

Any small team. Co-founders deciding whether to take an investment. Two business partners deciding whether to bring in a third. A family making a joint decision about an ageing parent. A parent committee picking between two schools. Group decisions for three to six participants are now available in Family; larger groups remain on the roadmap.

Any individual. The solo edition is free in full. Many of our users begin alone with a question they have not yet brought to anyone else. Some never invite a second participant at all; the solo product is the whole product for them.

The product is not built for a demographic. It is built for a shape of decision: high stakes, long timeline, circling for weeks, in need of more than a single conversation.

One specific case worth calling out. For decisions where the question is "which of several named options should we choose" (a baby's name, a brand name, a pet's name, a business name, a house street address, a holiday destination), the product runs in round-robin pairwise mode.

You enter up to ten named options at composition. Each evening, both you and your partner see a small set of randomly drawn pairs from the list (typically one to three pairs per evening, depending on duration and how many options you entered), and you each tap your preference for each pair. You are voting name A or name B, not ranking all ten at once. Across the period every pair has been shown to each of you multiple times.

On the final day the analysis reads every pairwise vote and produces a clear ranking by win count: the option that won the most of its pairwise contests, across both participants, is the winner; the runners-up are ranked below it. The synthesis paragraph reads the notes attached to each pair to name what you were each weighing as you chose. The conversation prompt opens the discussion about whether the analytical winner is also the felt winner.

This is the right format for any decision where the options are too many for a single A-vs-B vote and the question is "which one" rather than "yes or no." It works for ten baby names, ten brand candidates, ten potential routes for a holiday, ten possible new-pet names. The total daily commitment is still well under thirty seconds.

A paid Counsel.day decision costs $25 USD (Couple, two participants) or $49 USD (Family, three to six), charged upfront on the day you compose. Your first Solo decision is free; additional Solo decisions are $14 USD each. The person who opens the decision is the person who is charged. Partners are invited via a single-use magic link, accept the invitation, and vote alongside you with their own private accounts. Invitees do not pay separately. One decision, one charge.

The same structure applies to a family decision in Family. The person who opens the decision pays the $49 USD upfront, invites up to five additional participants by magic link, and everyone votes privately. The product never asks an invitee for payment.

For the rare household whose year genuinely calls for several decisions, a single Consumer Annual ($99 USD per year) covers unlimited Solo, Couple, and Family decisions on one account for twelve months. Each decision under the annual still works the same way: one inviter, invitees by magic link, no separate charge for invitees. Practitioners using Counsel.day with clients sit on a separate Practitioner Annual ($399 USD per year), sold only via the therapist program and counsellor program pages.