Most news aggregators run an LLM over headlines and output a clean summary. That shape breaks down in adversarial information environments. If Tasnim says one thing and AP says another, a clean summary either picks a side or hedges into something useless. I built a live desk that handles it differently. Free to use, no signup to look around. Originally for my own trading workflow. How it works: 199 monitored sources (wires, state media, Telegram, OSINT) on a 20-second refresh cycle Two-source minimum before anything is labelled confirmed Contradictions stay on screen as a contested state. Tasnim denying a US claim does not get hidden under a clean summary. Both receipts visible, both timestamped, market reaction shown alongside. Replay archive of what hit first, what confirmed, what faded Where I want feedback (the actual interesting questions): Source tiering. Telegram, state media, wires and OSINT do not carry equal weight. Two sources from the same axis is not really two sources. How would you structure the corroboration graph so the rule is harder to game? Contradiction surfacing without paralysis. Showing every disagreement creates noise. Suppressing it creates false confidence. Where does the line sit, and is there a model-based way to grade the materiality of a contradiction rather than a rule-based one? Lead-time vs accuracy tradeoff. The desk logged a Trump postpones Iran strikes headline 88 seconds before mainstream on 23 March 2026 (Brent moved 11.9% in 90 minutes, case file on the site). Faster than wires means accepting that some early items wash out. How aggressive should the confidence labelling be when speed and certainty pull against each other? What would you want to see in the proof page that is not there? Not a Bloomberg replacement. Not financial advice. No API yet. Web desk, installable as a PWA, iOS app is live. www.inteldesk.app submitted by /u/Internal-Estimate-21
Originally posted by u/Internal-Estimate-21 on r/ArtificialInteligence