Three stages. A duration you choose. One verdict, prepared and revealed at the end.
A single dinner-table conversation captures a single mood. Counsel.day captures the actual shape of how each of you feels across the period that suits the decision, then names what you were arguing about. Below: the three stages, in order.
You pose the question.
One of you opens a decision, writes the question as a single sentence (typically Should we …?), and picks a duration somewhere between seven and ninety days. For a Couple or Family decision you also pair your partner or family members with magic links that arrive in their inbox; the question lives only between the participants.
You can extend a decision later if life shifts the timeline; you cannot shorten it. The point of the duration is the patience it imposes.
You each vote in private.
Each evening at 19:00 in your timezone you each receive one prompt. Tap one of four buttons · Strong yes, Lean yes, Lean no, Strong no · with the option of adding a short note. The vote is sealed into the database within milliseconds and becomes unreadable, even by us.
Across the period you see whether your partner has cast tonight's vote; never which way they leaned. The point is to keep your own conviction your own until the close.
The verdicts open at the same instant.
On the final evening both verdicts publish together. Beneath them, an analysis of every note you wrote across the period · the agreement rate, the conviction trajectory for each of you, the themes that surfaced from your own words, the synthesis paragraph naming the actual axis of your disagreement, and one specific concrete question to open the conversation that follows.
Nothing about the analysis is reachable before the close. The keys are bound to the date; the database row is sealed-read; not even a member of staff can look. Every participant sees the verdict at the same instant, no one anchoring anyone else beforehand.
Four things a single conversation cannot show you.
Counsel.day is the only product that splits the private vote from the shared conversation, captures the vote daily across a duration you choose, and produces an analysis of the underlying disagreement when the period closes. These are the four things that fall out of that mechanism, and that nothing else in the category can produce.
The shape of each partner's conviction.
Whether your position is firming toward yes, drifting toward no, or holding steady. A rising trajectory across thirty evenings is qualitatively different information from a single yes spoken over a meal.
The themes that actually surfaced.
Not what you predicted you would write about on day one. The themes that actually appeared, in the words you used after work on a Wednesday, in the half-sentence you tapped out before bed on a Saturday.
The axis of disagreement underneath.
Most couples come to a decision believing they are arguing about whether to do the thing. After a season of private voting, the analysis often reveals they were arguing about something else entirely.
One real question for the conversation.
Not "communicate more openly." A concrete, actionable question shaped by what the two of you wrote across the period. The conversation still has to happen; the product comes before it, with the data laid out plainly.
Your first Solo decision is free.
No card required. The mechanism is the same as the paid tiers; pricing is at Pricing, in USD, worldwide.