Understand the disagreement, not just your side of it.
This is not a campaign site and it does not take a position. It is a set of reasoning instruments pointed at one of the hardest questions in public life — built to construct both cases at full strength, locate the exact proposition the disagreement turns on, translate the primary sources, and audit the numbers. No medical guidance. No referrals. No advocacy.
The instrument panel
Every button runs a distinct reasoning task. None are decorative.
Why it is built this way
Three commitments, enforced in the prompt layer.
Where an instrument produces two cases, it is instructed to give each an equal budget and equal charity, to name what each side's best argument concedes, and never to end on the same side twice by habit.
The output you get is a map: premises, cruxes, definitions, effective dates, denominators. The instrument refuses to tell you what to conclude, because the conclusion is the part that is yours.
Every request passes a scope guard before it reaches the model: no clinical guidance, no procedural or pharmacological detail, no referrals, no personalised legal advice, no advocacy copy. Refusals explain themselves and point somewhere useful.
Your bench log
Kept on this device. Signs in to follow you.