Regie.ai

The claim is load bearing and survives removal: the product is agents that source prospects, enrich them through a seven provider waterfall, monitor accounts for job changes and funding rounds, draft outreach in the seller's own voice learned from their sent mail, and run on recurring schedules so the seller wakes to a ranked queue. Strip the intelligence and nothing remains but a dialer and an empty list.

The claim is specific, named agent behaviors with visible schedule controls and credit metering of each machine action, and credible, five years of generative sales history predating the current wave, more than fifty million dollars raised, a technical founder with a doctorate, and hundreds of public reviews on the major directory.

The channel by channel autonomy split is the most explicit in this lane: agents send the day's emails on their own, calls land in the dialer for the human to place, and LinkedIn touches arrive as tasks the seller sends personally, never automated messages. Oversight machinery is visible, recurring schedules the user sets, an email recap after each agent run, and a hard stop when credits exhaust with all data preserved.

What holds this off the top band is a published contradiction on the vendor's own page: the same page that says agents send the day's emails also states that nothing goes out under your name that you did not send, and no permission model or approval surface is documented that reconciles which sentence governs.

One genuine training disclosure is made, the drafting model learns the seller's voice from their own sent mail, which tells the user exactly what personal data conditions the output. Past that single sentence, no model provider, family or method is named anywhere read, the frequently asked questions name two competing general assistants while never naming what runs underneath, and no documentation describes how the waterfall ranks providers or how the signal detection works.

A customer stories page exists in the navigation and was not opened, and the pages read today carry no named customer, no metric and no case study, a striking absence for a five year old vendor. The checkable evidence lives off site, hundreds of reviews at a strong average on the major directory, and in dated press from the funding round claiming triple digit annual revenue growth, but that claim is eighteen months old and describes the enterprise product the company has since repositioned away from. The current product's evidence record effectively restarts with the repositioning.

Real machinery is named in passing: do not call handling and dispositions in the dialer, unsubscribes handled automatically, every contact verified before send, and throttled sending, plus a European data protection badge in the footer. What is missing is the posture itself, no statute is discussed, no state calling restrictions, no consent framework for the dialer, no responsibility statement, and no compliance resource anywhere in a navigation that includes a cold calling curriculum. Feature bullets without a stated legal position sit at the middle of this axis.

A privacy policy and terms exist at their own routes and were not opened, so this row is flagged. The visible artifacts are real: a do not sell or share link on every page, a European data protection badge, and a cookie banner offering reject all as a first class choice rather than burying it.

The open question is specific to the architecture, the product reads the seller's sent mail to learn their voice and connects directly to their mailbox, and nothing read states retention or processing terms for that corpus.

The contact data architecture is disclosed at the structural level with unusual candor, a waterfall seven providers deep with mobile numbers, billed only when a lookup returns data, which admits plainly that the vendor is a reseller of third party data rather than claiming a proprietary database.

The providers themselves are unnamed, no licensing terms or provenance statement appears anywhere read, and the website visitor identification use case implies deanonymization capability whose data source is likewise undisclosed.

Every channel runs on sanctioned rails and the vendor says so in its own marketing: email sends through the seller's own connected Gmail or Outlook rather than automation or a provisioned burner domain, telephone numbers are provisioned first party in one click with no carrier setup, and the LinkedIn position is stated outright, touches arrive as tasks the seller sends personally, never automated messages.

That last sentence is the strongest platform respect commitment available short of naming the platform's terms, and naming them is what separates this from the top band under the standing rule. The one week old history of selling rotated vendor mailboxes belongs to the prior product and the current architecture is what is graded.

The stewardship question is concrete: the product ingests the seller's sent mail to train a personal writing model and holds their prospect and conversation data in a built in system of record, and nothing read states whether that material trains anything shared, how tenants are isolated, or how long the mail corpus persists.

The security badges in the footer, including one naming a continuous monitoring vendor, speak to security process rather than model data handling, and no artificial intelligence specific policy was located.

Both poles of the axis are published side by side. In the recipient's favor: mail arrives from the seller's real address, replies land where the seller reads them, LinkedIn messages are only ever sent by the human, unsubscribes are honored automatically, and the marketing openly names the problem of buyers buried in machine written slop.

Against: the product's stated goal is that machine drafting pass as the seller's own writing, trained on their sent mail so it reads like they wrote it, which is the anti disclosure position stated as a feature, the dialer ships local presence so the caller identity is chosen to look nearby, and nothing tells the recipient a machine was involved anywhere in the exchange.

Named connectors do described work: the major inbound marketing platform syncs contacts and activity in both directions and backfills existing records, a concrete integration behavior rather than a logo, mail connects through Gmail and Outlook, a dedicated integrations page sits in the product navigation, and prebuilt call, email and social workflows ship ready to run.

The built in system of record means the platform runs alongside a customer's stack rather than requiring replacement, stated explicitly in the questions. Off the top band: no developer documentation or programmatic interface was located, and the named connector set is small by design.

Cloud software with self serve signup against a work email. No hosting provider, region, residency option or architecture statement appears anywhere read, at a product that connects directly into customer mailboxes and holds their prospect data and voice model.

The footer badge on every page claims a completed service organization control type two audit and names the continuous monitoring vendor behind it, a more specific claim than a bare badge because it asserts live monitoring rather than a point in time report, alongside a European data protection badge, and the enterprise tier lists security as a named line item. Off the top band: no trust centre, report access, subprocessor list or vulnerability disclosure route was located anywhere read.

The published path is nearly complete for the individual buyer: a free tier with two hundred fifty one time credits, no card and a single user, a professional tier at forty nine dollars monthly with seventeen percent off annually and five thousand credits refreshing monthly, credits that do not roll over stated plainly, exhaustion behavior stated, everything pauses and data stays put, self serve cancellation with its effective timing stated, and empty enrichment lookups costing nothing.

The one load bearing gap holds this off the top band: no credit schedule is published, so a buyer cannot learn what a lookup, a drafted message or a dialed minute costs in credits, which makes five thousand credits an uninterpretable quantity, the exact number the whole plan is priced on. The enterprise tier is custom with contents listed.

The stated behaviors are adjacent to exit rather than exit itself: on credit exhaustion or downgrade the prospects, drafts and settings stay exactly where they are, and the two way sync with the inbound marketing platform means synced contacts and activity live in the customer's own system as a structural side door. No export function, format, deletion commitment or retention period for the built in system of record or the voice model appears anywhere read, and the terms were not opened.

The current published position is the strongest repudiation of the secondary domain architecture recorded in this index: email sends from the seller's own connected mailbox, not a vendor burner domain, so the sending reputation stays the seller's, with verification before every send, throttled sending, automated unsubscribe handling, and a stated philosophy of personalized and grounded rather than mass blasted.

The history has to sit beside it: third party captures of this vendor's own pricing page from one week before this build show the prior enterprise product selling mailbox rotation at fifty or one hundred dollars per user monthly for five or ten mailboxes with domains and warming bundled, precisely the architecture today's marketing argues against, and the custom enterprise tier is where any surviving machinery would live. The position graded is today's, the reversal is recorded, and no throttle rates or authentication guidance are published.

The repositioned product states its buyer with unusual precision, one person filling the pipeline themselves on the professional tier, teams building at scale on enterprise, backed by a who it is for section in the navigation and six named use case pages spanning cold outbound, inbound speed to lead, website visitor identification, named account signals, enrichment and daily workflow. The questions even position honestly against general purpose assistants.

Off the top band: no geography, language coverage or customer counts anywhere read, and the seat minimums that defined the prior product's floor are gone without the new product stating any scale ceiling.