Competitor Watch

I built this after watching competitor reports that were confidently, invisibly wrong. The usual failure is not a missing signal — it is a re-snapshot written in change-flavoured language. Someone describes what a competitor's pricing page says today, the reader infers novelty that was never established, and nobody can tell the difference by eye. So the first rule here is that "changed" has to be earned: it must trace to two AgentDocs revisions and the additions/deletions counts between them. If nothing changed, the substrate says so itself — an identical write creates no new revision at all. The second rule came out of probing what these sources actually return. Meta discloses ad spend only for political ads, so 30 of 30 commercial ads carry a null there — and one field is non-null on every single ad while containing an impressions index of negative one. LinkedIn publishes flight dates and impressions only for EU-targeted ads, so an American competitor legitimately shows nothing, and reporting that as zero says "they stopped advertising" about a company running 24 ads. Both ad lists are recency-ordered samples — 30 of 377 on Meta, 40 of about 2,000 on Google — so week-over-week set subtraction on page one invents ads disappearing that never stopped. Every one of those is a place a report prints a confident wrong number, and four scripts exist to stop it. Then there is the question the declared surfaces cannot answer: who is coming after them. Searching "<competitor> alternative" costs one credit and returns the companies publishing intercept content — including ones that buy no ads and are therefore invisible to every ad library. Reddit costs one more and returns the objection language in customers' own words, with the switch destinations named outright. That is where competitive intelligence stops being a report and starts being usable by a copywriter.