A worked example, layer by layer.
Thirty private votes, cast one per evening, by two partners who never saw each other's drift. The pages below are an illustrative reproduction of what the last day produces: two verdict words, a thirty-day trajectory, the themes that surfaced in the notes, the synthesis paragraph naming the axis underneath, and the one specific question that opens what comes next. Names and content are fictional; the structure is exactly what the live product produces.
"Should we move into the city for school, or stay in the village and homeschool for another two years?"
The question was entered on the evening of 15 April 2026. Both partners agreed the duration · thirty days · before either of them cast their first vote. The product then sealed the read path: neither partner could see the other's vote, note, or running average until the morning of 15 May.
Two partners. Two private trajectories. One opening.
At 06:00 local time on day thirty, both verdict cards published simultaneously. Below is the reproduction of that moment.
"The school's curriculum changed the shape of the question. Once we toured, the city move stopped being about us and started being about him."
"I am closer to yes than I was, but the village is still the loss I keep weighing. Yes, with a quiet grief."
The shape of each evening.
Each chip below is one evening. The wine bar is James's vote, the rose bar is Alex's. Both bars rise toward yes as the period progresses. The shape, not the average, is what the analysis reads.
28 of 30 days voted by each partner · 2 skipped days each, never the same evening
What you wrote, when no one was reading.
The notes both partners typed across the period were processed locally for theme extraction. The five themes below carry the highest frequency in the combined notes corpus.
What you were actually arguing about.
The surface question was whether to move into the city for school. The axis underneath, as both partners' notes consistently revealed across the period, was a different question: what does each of you owe the village you have built, and what does each of you owe the child you are raising inside it? James moved first because the curriculum question was decisive for him; Alex moved second, more slowly, because the loss of the village was a real cost that the curriculum did not erase. The trajectories converged but did not match. The verdict is a yes, with a quiet grief.
The thirty-day arc shows a real shift, not a coin flip. Both partners are firmer at the end than at the beginning. The decision is durable. The grief is real and survives the verdict; it does not contradict it.
What to talk about tonight.
"Alex, what do you want to keep from the village, deliberately, even after the move? James, what specifically do you want to make sure he carries with him from the place he was born?"
The prompt is shaped by what both of you actually wrote across the thirty days. Not "communicate more openly." A real, concrete question that the data underneath the verdict has earned.