Influencing decisions. Rarely verified.
Companies let AI guide real decisions. Few teams check the reasoning behind the output before they act on it.
64%
of enterprise leaders use AI to guide decisions and provide evidence*
57%
of analytical model failures stem from committing too early to an incorrect interpretation ☩
<20%
of organizations review AI-generated output before it is put to use ‡
Confidence alone won’t do when AI is used to shape strategy or customer outcomes. Teams need a repeatable way to review the output and catch flawed reasoning before it influences a decision.
Plausible is not provable
We built Posit on the belief that an analytical insight is only as good as the code behind it. Whoever produced it, whatever tool drafted it, the method has to exist as code that someone else can open and rerun to get the same result from.
A correct analysis means the method and the numbers are right. A verifiable analysis means a manager, a board member, or an auditor can rely on it before committing money or reputation: they can see what code ran, against what data, in which environment, by whom, and whether the whole artifact reproduces the same result later.
Specifically:
- What code - the exact version that executed
- Against what data - the specific inputs, as they were at the time
- In which environment - packages pinned, versions captured
- And rerun later - same artifact, same result, today or years from now
Ask the same question twice. Get two answers.
Large language models are built on statistics, not calculators. They're designed to guess the most likely next word, which makes them inherently unpredictable.
The inconvenient truth is that if you ask your question again, you are likely to get a different answer. Which one is right?
That variability is a feature when you want creativity. It's a liability when you need a factual, mathematical deliverable.
"I asked the model" isn't a method a reviewer can accept, because asking again isn't a reproduction - it's a new version.
Code doesn't have this problem. Pin the environment and the same code on the same data returns the same result every time.
Generate once. Rerun forever.
Use models for what they do well: proposing the approach and drafting code. Then run that code in an environment you control, on data you own, with packages you can pin, and publish an artifact that holds all of it together.
You hand the reviewer the artifact: its data, code, and environment, all in one place. As a business user, you may never read a line of the code. The people whose job is to check it can. A data practitioner, a compliance reviewer, an external auditor, opens the same artifact and regenerates the same result.
When you re-prompt the model
- Ask twice, get two results, with no basis for preferring either
- Asking again is a new draw, not a reproduction
- There's nothing to hand over except the conversation
- Nobody can say which version informed the decision
When you rerun the artifact
- The same result comes back, this quarter and years from now
- A reviewer opens the exact code, data, and environment that produced it
- The work is attributed, so "who ran this" has an answer
- Model variability stays where it belongs, in the drafting
Analysis that held up, across every industry we serve
Verifiability is a by-product of the work
Open by design. Easy to integrate. Made to last.
References:
* Wharton, Human-AI Research “Accountable Acceleration: Gen AI Fast-Tracks into the Enterprise” October 2025, https://ai.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-Wharton-GBK-AI-Adoption-Report_Full-Report.pdf
☩ Artificial Analysis “Announcing AA-AnalystAgent: An agentic benchmark for quantitative analysis on real-world spreadsheets and documents” August, 2026 https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/aa-analyst-agent
‡ McKinsey “The state of AI: How organizations are rewiring to capture value” March, 2025 https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai-how-organizations-are-rewiring-to-capture-value