You're Choosing Between Two Real Options. Here's a Report That Won't Pick One for You.
Most forecasting tools are built to hand you an answer. But many real business decisions aren't "is this a good idea?" — they're "which of these two paths do we take?" For those, a system that quietly steers you toward one option is doing you a disservice. So we built a mode that deliberately refuses to.
The setup: two plans, simulated separately
Meridian Freight, a fictional logistics company, has to cut 15% of its warehouse workforce. Leadership is split, so they run each plan as its own Foretell simulation:
- Plan A — Severance-first downsizing: generous packages, fast timeline, a clean break.
- Plan B — Redeploy-and-retrain: slower, keeps most people, moves them into a new automation-support division.
Each simulation runs the full engine — 1,000 agents (employees, customers, press, investors) reacting over four rounds. Now Meridian has two separate reports. The question is how to hold them side by side.
Linked Reports, in two modes
You link the two reports into one unified report for $25 per report. A shared ~30-agent audience panel cross-analyzes both paths together, and you pick how the answer comes back:
- Ranked — Foretell recommends the stronger path and shows every option's real simulated risk. Honest ranking, never manufactured optimism.
- Decision Comparison — every path at equal depth, each with its own "watch out for this," and no winner named.
Why the neutral mode matters
In our test, Plan A simulated at a lower risk than Plan B. An answer-first tool would have stamped Plan A "the winner" and moved on. Decision Comparison mode doesn't. It surfaced genuine strengths of the higher-risk Plan B — the retention goodwill, the internal-mobility story the press liked — right next to genuine watch-fors for the lower-risk Plan A: the "they paid people to leave during a hiring freeze" narrative. Both paths, fully argued. The decision stays with the humans who hold context the simulation doesn't.
"Keeping people and moving them into the automation team is the story that ages well — 'we retrained our workforce' beats 'we paid them to leave.'"— a simulated industry commentator, from the Plan B report
That's the whole point: when you're genuinely deciding between alternatives, you want the fullest possible read on each path — not a system that buries the trade-offs behind a single recommendation.
How it's priced
$25 per report linked, no cap on how many you link, and the same price whether you choose Ranked or Decision Comparison. Reports you already paid for are not charged their simulation price again — only the per-report linking fee applies.