The UI looks correct while permissions are broken
Screens render, buttons work, and the data underneath is reachable by people who should never see it.
Verify before you launch
Is your AI-built app actually ready to launch?
Your app can look finished while still exposing data, breaking permissions, failing real workflows, or behaving differently from what you asked the AI to build.
We independently test your running app against up to 10 requirements you nominate, then send you a written report marking each one VERIFIED, FAILED or NOT VERIFIED — with the evidence behind every verdict, ranked launch blockers, and a short review call.
Real Tests. Clear Evidence. Actionable Findings.
Apply for a Founding Launch Check
$49 if accepted • No payment today
Built for founders and teams shipping apps with Lovable, Replit, Cursor, Claude, Codex, Bolt and other AI development tools.
Real Tests
We verify what actually matters.
Clear Evidence
Screenshots, logs and results.
Actionable Findings
Not just problems — next steps.
Launch with Confidence
A safer, smoother go-live.
Before you launch
What looks finished can still fail underneath.
The screens render. The demo flows. These are the things that keep working anyway — until a real user finds them.
- One user can reach another user's data
- Permissions are enforced in the interface, not on the server
- Payment edge cases — failed, duplicated or abandoned charges
- Real-world workflows break where the demo path did not
- Hidden API behavior that the interface never reveals
- Drift between what you asked the AI to build and what it built
A successful demo proves the demo worked. It does not prove the product is ready.
The gap
AI can build software incredibly fast. Verification hasn't caught up.
Shipping speed went up by an order of magnitude. The way we confirm a product is actually ready did not move at all.
The demo passes; the direct API does not
A clean happy-path walkthrough says nothing about what a request sent straight to your endpoints returns.
Implementation quietly differs from intent
The app that got built is not always the app you described. The gap usually surfaces after launch.
Real workflows fail where demos don't
Edge cases, empty states, failed payments, second users, and partial data break flows that looked finished.
The AI that built it also grades it
Self-assessment from the same system that wrote the code is not independent verification of anything.
"It builds and tests pass" is not readiness
Compilation and unit tests confirm code runs. They don't confirm the product does what you promised.
How it works
From what you intended, to what the running app actually does
This is product verification against intended behavior — not a compile step and not a test-suite summary. Passing tests tell you the code runs. This tells you whether the product keeps its promises.
- 01
Your Intent
What you told the AI to build, and what you promise your users.
- 02
Product Requirements
Intent translated into concrete, checkable statements.
- 03
Verification Claims
Each requirement becomes a claim that can pass or fail.
- 04
Runtime Evidence
Claims exercised against the running app, with captured results.
- 05
Verdict
VERIFIED / FAILED / NOT VERIFIED, each tied to its evidence.
Example finding
Every conclusion carries its evidence
A sample finding from the Launch Truth Report. Fictional data, real format.
Launch Truth Report
Verify before you launch
- Verification ID
- LT-SAMPLE-001
- Product
- Sample client portal
- Environment
- Staging
- Report Date
- Illustrative
VERIFIED
7
FAILED
1
NOT VERIFIED
2
LAUNCH BLOCKERS
1
Finding · REQ-04 FAILED
- Requirement
- "Users must only access their own organization's data."
- Verdict
- FAILED — launch blocker
- Evidence
PASS · signed in as user@northwind-sample.test · GET /api/records?org=northwind → 200 · own organization records returned
FAIL · same session · GET /api/records?org=acme-sample → 200 · 14 records belonging to another organization returned
- Verdict impact
- One customer can read another customer's data through the API, even though the interface never exposes it. Do not launch with this open.
- Next action
- Enforce the organization filter server-side on the records endpoint, then re-run this check with two accounts in different organizations before release.
Illustrative example using fictional sample data. Not a real customer finding.
Want this kind of answer for your app?
Apply for a Founding Launch Check$49 if accepted • No payment today
Positioning
Not another security scanner.
Security tools ask: “Is this software vulnerable?” LaunchTruth asks a different question: “Does this product actually behave the way you intended?”
A scanner reports
Known vulnerability classes, dependency advisories and configuration patterns, found by inspecting code or traffic for signatures of risk.
LaunchTruth reports
Whether your stated requirements, permission rules, real workflows and observable runtime behavior hold up when independently exercised — each answer tied to captured evidence.
Both matter. They are not the same job, and passing one says nothing about the other.
The offer
What the Founding Launch Check includes
Application first. Scope confirmed before payment.
Founding Launch Check
$49 if accepted
- Verification of up to 10 important product requirements you nominate
- Critical workflow verification across the paths your users actually take
- Basic authorization and access checks within an agreed scope
- Evidence-backed findings — no conclusion without something to show for it
- The Launch Truth Report, written to be read by you and your developers
- Critical launch blockers, ranked, with recommended next actions
- A short findings review call to walk through what matters
For accepted pilots, delivery is typically targeted within 48 hours after scope and access are confirmed.
Apply for a Founding Launch Check
No payment today. We review your app first.
Scope and limitations
What this is — and what it deliberately is not
- This is scoped product verification against your stated intent.
- It is not a comprehensive security audit.
- It is not a penetration test.
- It is not a regulatory certification or compliance sign-off.
- It is not a guarantee that your app contains no defects.
- Anything outside the agreed scope is reported as NOT VERIFIED rather than assumed to be fine.
Founding pilot application
Apply for a Founding Launch Check
Tell us what you built and what worries you. If it's a fit, we'll confirm scope and access before anything is charged.
FAQ
Straight answers
What do you verify?+
Your product against what it was supposed to do. We turn your intent into concrete requirements, exercise them against the running app, and report each one as VERIFIED, FAILED or NOT VERIFIED with the evidence behind it. Up to 10 requirements in the Founding Launch Check, plus critical workflows and basic authorization checks in the agreed scope.
Do you need source-code access?+
Not necessarily for a first check. Verification runs against the working app with a test account. Repository access is optional and can be useful for deeper root-cause analysis when something fails — but it is not required to get a report.
Is this a security audit?+
No. We perform basic authorization and access checks inside an agreed scope, because that is where AI-built apps commonly break. It is not a comprehensive security audit, not a penetration test, and not a certification. If you need those, you need a specialist security firm.
When do I pay?+
Not today. The application collects no payment details. If your app is accepted into the founding pilot, we contact you to confirm scope and access, and the price is $49 — agreed with you before anything is charged.
How long does it take?+
For accepted pilots, the target is typically within 48 hours after scope and access are confirmed. Larger or unusual scopes may take longer, and we tell you before we start.
What happens if my app is not a fit?+
We tell you directly, explain why, and you owe nothing. Common reasons: the app is too early to exercise, there is no reachable environment or test account, or the request is really a security audit rather than product verification.
Why not just ask the AI that built my app to test it?+
Because the same assumptions that shaped the implementation also shape its tests. If the model misread your intent while building, it will usually misread it again while checking — and report a pass. LaunchTruth starts from your explicit product intent, then independently verifies the running product against observable evidence rather than against the assumptions that produced the code.