CPG Canary
Deep research & strategy engine for CPG food & beverage
6 followers
Deep research & strategy engine for CPG food & beverage
6 followers
Deep research on your CPG product in ~15 minutes: sixteen agents, one reconciled report, then a strategy engine that stays loaded with your business. New: the Test Kitchen tests ideas you haven't launched yet against price-checked competitors, unit economics computed in code, and a synthetic shopper panel. $99/mo, 14-day free trial.
Curious how the sixteen agents actually coordinate without producing contradictory findings, since most multi-agent setups I've seen end up needing a human to reconcile the mess anyway.
@berat1440442 Fair skepticism, and it's honestly the part I've put the most engineering time into. The key is that the sixteen don't run as a free-for-all that gets cleaned up afterward. Coordination is built into how and when they execute.
It's staged as a dependency graph. A foundation pass (category detection, input normalization) runs first, because everything downstream keys off it. Then the independent research lenses fan out and run genuinely in parallel. Then the agents that actually consume earlier outputs (cost builds on pricing, brand and persona build on the competitive and market reads) run after, so nobody is ever working from stale or half-finished inputs. There's a hard barrier between those stages, and synthesis runs last, on complete data. A lot of the "contradictory findings" problem just gets designed out by ordering and scoping rather than caught later.
The numbers are also single-source. Every figure that matters, margins, per-unit economics, the channel waterfall, is computed once in deterministic code, and the agents interpret that shared result instead of each redoing the math. So you structurally can't get one agent citing a 32% margin and another 45%.
Then a single synthesis pass reconciles the lenses into one report, and where two genuinely disagree it surfaces the tension instead of smoothing it over. Example: if the failure-pattern library finds no historical analog (looks safe) but the forward-looking synthesis flags a real risk (looks risky), the report calls that out explicitly. Handing a founder a real trade-off is the useful thing. Hiding it would be the actual bug.
So the human-reconciling-the-mess problem didn't get solved so much as moved into the architecture: scoped lenses, dependency ordering, single-source math, and one synthesis pass that's allowed to say "these two things are in tension.