How is Vantage different from ChatGPT or Claude?

ChatGPT and Claude write you a document. Vantage keeps the document, prototype, tickets and roadmap connected to the feedback and decisions behind them, and tells you when one of them changes. You can also bring your Vantage context into Claude or ChatGPT, so you don’t have to choose.

Do I have to move off Notion or Linear?

No. Keep the tools you use and connect them to Vantage. Tickets push to Linear with two-way sync, and you approve every change that comes back.

What can I do in the first ten minutes?

Paste customer feedback or describe a problem, and get a PRD with every requirement linked to its source. You can try the demo on this page without signing up. Connect your tools whenever you’re ready.

I own several projects. What does Vantage do across them?

It briefs you every morning on what needs your call, catches specs that contradict each other, and flags anything that went stale after a decision changed. It works for a single project and earns its keep at two or more.

What if the AI gets something wrong?

Nothing updates silently. Every requirement cites the quote, call or metric behind it, and every change arrives as a diff you accept or reject before it touches your docs, tickets or Linear.

Can I use Vantage from Claude or ChatGPT?

Yes. Connect Vantage’s MCP server to Claude, add the GPT Action in ChatGPT, or use an API key. Then ask about your projects, search your specs, or create tickets from wherever you work.

Start on your own for free. When teammates join, they work from the same context, with admin, editor and viewer roles and private drafts that stay invite-only until you publish.

What does fair use mean on the unlimited features?

Unlimited features are meant for real day-to-day work by one person: up to 50 questions a day on Pro and Business, and on Business up to 10 PRDs, journeys or ticket batches a day. Very few people get close. If your team regularly needs more, talk to us.

Your data is encrypted in transit, and we never train on it. The AI providers we use are contractually barred from training on it too. You can disconnect any integration or delete your account at any time. We’re pursuing SOC 2 Type II.

How much does it cost?

Vantage is free to start with 300 credits and no credit card. Projects are unlimited on every plan, and AI work like generating a PRD or a ticket batch uses credits. Pro is $19 per seat a month billed annually ($25 monthly) with 1,500 credits a month, unlimited questions and prototypes. Business adds a shared team workspace and 4,000 credits per seat a month.

How do we avoid a political debate?

Keep the conversation tied to claims, sources and consequences rather than personal credibility.

Should every assumption block work?

No. Prioritize uncertainty that materially changes the decision.

What is a useful output?

A clear commitment boundary, a short list of consequential unknowns and owners for obtaining evidence.

Product workflows2026-10-272 min read

Review Stakeholder Assumptions in Miro

Ask stakeholders to state the beliefs behind a proposal, then distinguish factual constraints from assumptions that can be tested. This manual review creates clarity without treating seniority as a substitute for evidence.

Before you start: Have a concrete decision, decision owner and supporting material. Invite people who hold different information about customer, business and delivery constraints.

Worked example: A stakeholder says customers require an export before buying. Determine which customers, what evidence exists and whether the requirement means a file download or a usable reporting outcome.

Step-by-step guide

Write the proposed commitment

State what the team is about to fund or promise. Keep the review tied to that consequence.

Collect beliefs independently

Ask what each stakeholder thinks must be true. Record claims in a form that could be checked.

Classify the statements

Separate observed facts, policy constraints, preferences and testable assumptions. Ask for the source of each supposed requirement.

Surface disagreement

Place conflicting claims side by side and inspect their different contexts. Do not average away genuine audience differences.

Choose evidence work

Prioritize unresolved beliefs that could change the commitment. Define a small test or verification task and its owner.

Record decision boundaries

State what can proceed now, what remains conditional and when the decision will be revisited. Preserve dissent and source links.

Common mistakes

Authority becomes evidence

Ask for a source without dismissing expertise.

Preference called constraint

Verify whether it is mandatory.

All disagreement removed

Conflicting contexts may both be valid.

Tips

Ask which evidence would change a belief.

Keep mandatory policy separate from customer hypotheses.

Record conditional commitments explicitly.

Sources and verification

Based on product documentation checked on 2026-10-24. This is a documentation-based guide, not a hands-on benchmark. Features and availability can change.