About
Most prospecting asks how many names can be gathered. That is the wrong question. The useful one is which companies are worth a careful conversation, and why this quarter rather than last.
Answering it properly takes about fifteen minutes per company — a funding announcement, a job spec, a stack page, a read of what they actually do. Across a market of a thousand, that is a job nobody has time for, so it gets skipped and replaced with a filter. The filter produces a list, the list produces sends, and the sends produce the reputation damage that makes the next round harder.
So the product does the first pass and shows its working. It does not decide for you. It makes the deciding cheap enough to actually do.
Fewer wrong accounts, more credible conversations, and a record of why each one is on the list.
We were describing the product’s output with a word that implies somebody had shown interest. Nobody had. A penetration-testing firm replied to our outreach and said so, in about one sentence, and there was no version of the argument where they were not correct.
So the site changed. Not just the word — the positioning underneath it, the claims that depended on it, and the pages that had quietly overstated what the product can observe. That is what this version of the site is.
The boundary, written outEvery expensive operation sits behind a gate. Deterministic checks run first, a model escalates only where the rules genuinely can't decide, and deep research is reserved for accounts that earned it. In development running, 91% of candidates were discarded before a cent was spent researching them.
You don't need another tool to babysit. The work is front-loaded into setup so the running state is a queue of decisions you can make quickly, with the reasoning already assembled.
Every outbound message reaches a real person, under your name. That makes researched, relevant, and reviewable the baseline rather than the premium tier — and it is why the sending protections aren't gated behind a higher plan.
Every score, shortlist, research field, and draft carries enough reasoning for a careful reader to disagree with it. A system you can't argue with is one you have to take on faith, and faith is not a product feature.
These are behaviours the product will not have. For the separate question of what can and cannot be known about a company from outside it, see what we can’t see.
We don't sell or buy lists.
There is no list ingestion path in the product, and no way to export one out of it either.
We don't claim to see intent.
Nobody can, from outside a company, before contact. Saying so cost us a positioning we liked.
We don't promise replies.
We don't publish a reply rate yet either, because we haven't run enough campaigns to have one worth trusting.
We don't run a black box.
Every score carries its reasons, including the discards, and an inference is labelled as an inference.
We don't meter you.
A flat monthly fee with a research ceiling, not a credit balance draining in the background while you work.
We don't optimise for volume.
The allowance is a ceiling on our research spend. It exists so we never have to pad a list to hit a number.
LeadAtomic is my work. I designed the pipeline, wrote most of it, and I am the person who answers when you write in — not a shared inbox with a rota behind it.
I mention that because it changes what you are buying. Pre-launch, founder-led software is a bet on judgement, and judgement should have a name attached to it. It also means the limits on this site are limits I chose to publish rather than ones a marketing team missed.
If something here doesn’t hold up, tell me. The last person who did that got the whole site rewritten.
Questions about the product, the pricing, or whether this fits what you do. Not a ticket number.