How is this different from what we already get from our own research or CoStar-style data?
Most of what we pull together already exists somewhere, a DNO capacity map here, a planning register there, a land registry search somewhere else. The difference is we assemble all of it for one site, tell you which parts are confirmed and which are estimated, and flag anything that makes the site a non-starter regardless of how good it looks on paper. If you’re already getting that in one place, tell me what you use, I’d genuinely like to know what’s missing from ours.
Is this AI making things up, or real data?
Real data. Every figure traces back to a source, DNO capacity data, planning registers, environmental designations, land registry records. We never blend a real number and a guess into one figure without saying which is which. If we don’t have confirmed data for something, the report says so instead of estimating quietly.
Can I rely on this instead of a proper survey, grid connection application, or planning check?
No, and we’d tell you that even if it cost us the sale. This is a screening tool, it tells you whether a site is worth spending real diligence money on, not a replacement for the survey, the grid connection process, or a planning consultant’s opinion. Think of it as the filter before the expensive work, not the expensive work itself.
What if the evidence is wrong or out of date?
Every domain is date-stamped. Infrastructure data changes, a grid capacity figure from two years ago isn’t as reliable as one from two months ago, so the report tells you when each piece of evidence was gathered, not just what it says. If something looks stale or wrong, tell us, the report explains what to verify and with whom.
How much does it cost?
Nothing for the first look. If it proves useful after that, we can talk about what a fuller review would cost. We don’t discount silently or quote below a fixed floor, every quote is one we’re happy to stand behind later.
Are you replacing agents, brokers, or consultants?
No. If we introduce an investor off the back of your listing, that introduction comes through you, not around you. We’re trying to make the early screening step faster, not take your role.
This looks quite technical, can you make it simpler?
Yes, and we’d rather know that up front than have you quietly ignore it. Tell us which part lost you and we’ll adjust the format for your listing.
How do I know your power/grid data is actually current?
Every domain is date-stamped with when we gathered it, not just what it says, that’s not a footnote, it’s the point. Grid positions and planning statuses genuinely change over months, so a report tells you exactly how fresh each piece of evidence is, and if something’s old enough to be worth re-checking, we’d rather you know that than assume everything’s current.
What happens if you get it wrong?
We’d want to know, first, and we’d rather you tell us than quietly stop using it. This is a screening tool, not a certified opinion, precisely because evidence can be wrong, missing, or out of date, and we say so in the report itself rather than presenting everything with false confidence. If a domain’s evidence turns out to be stale or mistaken, that’s exactly the kind of gap the confidence tiers exist to flag honestly rather than hide.
Why should I trust a company that’s basically one person?
Fair question, and I won’t pretend otherwise, right now it is one person. What that buys you is someone who actually built the thing answering your questions directly, not a support queue. What it doesn’t buy you yet is a company with headcount and continuity if I’m unavailable, that’s a real, current limitation, and I’d rather say so than oversell where this is.
Question not answered here? Ask directly, no form to fill out first.
Get in touch