Ground in research evidence
Organize interviews, observations, behavioral data, and market knowledge with source and scope intact.
Back to Technology
Core Model
Subjective World Model
Model how people perceive, think, feel, and decide.
Organize consumer experience, language, preferences, and context into interactive cognitive simulations—so teams can explore how different people may respond before committing in the real world.
How It Works
From real evidence to interactive subjective worlds.
The model preserves individual differences, lived context, and inconsistency—revealing why people perceive, feel, and choose as they do through interactive simulation.
Build situated individuals
Model differentiated cognition through experience, goals, language, and environment—not average personas.
Run interactive simulations
Use interviews, tasks, concepts, and scenarios to observe reasoning and disagreement across people.
Calibrate against reality
Feed real research and business outcomes back into the system so simulations remain testable over time.
Technical Artifact · Persona Evidence Profile
Preserve human contradiction as testable evidence instead of averaging it away.
A persona profile combines evidence from expression, narrative, cognition, and behavior. Each layer retains its own provenance and weight, then calibrates against real research and outcomes.
Expression
How a person describes themselves, their attitudes, and preferences.
Story
How experience, relationships, and lived situations shape interpretation.
Cognition
How goals, judgment patterns, and value weights shape choice.
Behavior
How observed action supports, revises, or contradicts stated preference.
In Production
Its role inreal enterprise work.
Screen hypotheses before fieldwork
Compare concepts, language, and use contexts early to identify the questions most worth taking into interviews and experiments.
Sharpen the next research question
Turn disagreement, hesitation, and edge reactions across cohorts into sharper interview guides and validation tasks.
Rehearse differences across markets and cohorts
Compare reactions across cultures, experiences, and contexts within one framework to inform localized research and decisions.
Validation & Guardrails
Simulation does not replace reality. It makes research earlier and more continuous.
The Subjective World Model forms hypotheses, surfaces differences, and accelerates validation. It does not present prediction as certainty; consequential decisions return to real evidence and human research.
How We Measure
01
Real-research calibration
02
Response distribution stability
03
Contradiction retention
04
Cohort differentiation
Boundaries & Guardrails
Traceable evidence grounding
Distinguish research evidence, enterprise knowledge, and model-generated content with provenance and scope.
Cohort and contradiction checks
Compare cohorts, edge cases, and contradictory views so averages do not erase meaningful differences.
Calibration and human research
Use real interviews, experiments, and outcomes to continuously calibrate scope and confidence.
Connected Technology
Every capability,working as one system.
Models, context, runtime, and enterprise foundations work together to move agents from understanding to reliable action.
01
Core Model
Creative Reasoning Model
Explore more than one answer to complex business problems.
Learn more02GEA Architecture
Context System
Help agents understand what is happening in the enterprise—and keep acting on it.
Learn more03GEA Architecture
Long-Horizon Agent Runtime
Keep work moving toward long-horizon goals and outcomes.
Learn moreTechnical questions
Understand the mechanism, boundaries, and production requirements.
01
How is a Subjective World Model different from a conventional persona?
A conventional persona usually summarizes relatively static traits. A Subjective World Model organizes experience, goals, language, and a specific situation into an interactive cognitive simulation, exploring not only who someone is but why they interpret and choose as they do in that moment.
02
Can simulation replace research with real people?
No. Simulation makes research earlier and more continuous, helping teams form hypotheses and narrow the search space. Consequential decisions still require validation through real interviews, experiments, and business outcomes.
03
How should teams express confidence in a simulation?
Results should be presented as hypotheses with evidence scope, cohort assumptions, and uncertainty—not as population facts. Their decision weight should increase only through calibration against real interviews, experiments, and observed outcomes.
Ready when you are