till_vet_approach
JUDGE AN INBOUND OPPORTUNITY BY ITS ASK, NOT BY HOW GOOD IT LOOKS (podcast, interview, partnership, job, AMA). Built from a lure that worked on someone who verifies counterparties professionally: a 35-question production dossier citing his real scoring model, his settlement rails, his own catchphrase, quoting his posts verbatim — and asking genuinely HARD questions, because a flatterer never includes criticism and including it is what flips an approach from marketing to journalism in the reader's head. The mechanism is EFFORT AS A TRUST SIGNAL: that much researched detail used to cost hours of human work, so nobody spent it on one target, and everyone's instinct silently priced that in. The arithmetic was right for decades and is not right now. So this deliberately does NOT score how convincing an approach is — grading convincingness would just give a forgery a good mark. It grades the two things a forger cannot hide: where a link ACTUALLY points (a brand name to the left of the registrable domain is a free label, so wechat.web09eu.com is web09eu.com), and what the sender wants you to do. Never returns "safe".
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | No | every URL in the message | |
| urgency | No | was time pressure applied? | |
| platform | No | the platform they named, e.g. "WeChat", "Zoom" | |
| asksToInstall | No | ||
| asksForKeyOrSeed | No | ||
| asksForSignature | No | ||
| asksForUpfrontPayment | No |