New Product Evaluation Loop — Broadsheet Consolidated Report

Decision Memo / 01

One active offer.
Four verified probes.

The current evaluation loop is no longer a comparison-table exercise. It is a contact-ready test of one offer: a $750 pre-client AI visual trust audit for fashion, beauty, luxury, and product imagery.

Reference Intelligence is preserved but shelved for this round. Winery is dropped by prior learning. Studio founders who already sell AI creative direction are separated into partner/supplier intel so their responses do not contaminate buyer validation.

“A niche is selected by who replies and pays, not by who scores well in a table.”

Operating principle

Field Map / 02

Who is active.
Who is not.

	Track	Count	Status	Use
01	Buyer Probes	4	● Sendable only with authorization	Real buyer validation. Log in reach_log.csv.
02	Partner / Supplier Intel	5	● Separate track	White-label or reseller signal. Log in partner_log.csv.
03	Reference Intelligence	3	● Shelved	Needs about ten verified studio-owner contacts before testing.
04	Winery	0	● Dropped	Prior-learning gate blocks outbound.

People Directory / 03

Every person.
Clickable source path.

Every named person in this report is listed here with a public website, Instagram, LinkedIn, marketplace, or studio/contact path. All links open in a new browser window.

Buyer Probes / 04

Verified drafts.
No blast.

These are the only currently sendable buyer probes, and even these require explicit Arseni authorization per channel.

Cherlin Mao

Channel
email cherlinmao@gmail.com

Verified hook
Her portfolio frames her as a concept artist, 3D artist, art lead, and AI visual creator using a 3D/product-visualization background for generative imagery, motion, and commercial storytelling.

Cherlin, your portfolio stood out because you are not coming at AI imagery as a prompt-only creator; you have concept art, 3D, art-lead, and outsource-quality-control background underneath the generative work.

I’m testing whether that exact kind of trained visual judgment is becoming a paid checkpoint: $750 to audit 10-20 AI visuals before client delivery, flagging realism, taste, product-status, and brand-trust defects.

For commercial/storytelling AI work like yours, would this have saved enough rework on a recent project to buy, or would it feel redundant because you already do that QC yourself?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Noemi Finel

Channel
email noemi.finel@gmail.com or Instagram @noemifinel

Verified hook
Her portfolio lists AI creative/art-direction work for fashion, beauty, and culture, including Armani Beauty, Jean Paul Gaultier, Vilebrequin, UGG, Loewe, and Hermès/IFM references.

Noemi, your Armani Beauty / Gaultier / Vilebrequin AI work is exactly the context I’m trying to learn from: AI visuals that have to survive a fashion or beauty client’s taste threshold, not just look technically impressive.

I’m testing a very small paid offer: a $750 pre-client creative-direction audit on 10-20 AI images, focused on what makes them feel generic, uncanny, off-brand, or not ready for luxury/beauty presentation.

Would you have bought a second-eye audit like that on any recent project, or is your own creative-direction layer already enough that the pain is not worth paying for?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Doron Shapira

Channel
Hypear creator profile at https://www.hypear.ai/

Verified hook
Hypear lists Doron Shapira as an AI creator working on character/avatar work for beauty and cosmetics.

Doron, I saw your Hypear profile around AI character/avatar work for beauty and cosmetics. That category seems especially exposed to subtle trust failures: skin, face, material, expression, and brand tone all have to feel right.

I’m testing a $750 pre-client visual trust audit for 10-20 AI images: mark what looks generic, uncanny, off-brand, or likely to trigger client revisions before the work is sent.

For beauty/avatar AI work, would that second-eye audit have been worth buying recently, or is the revision pain too small to justify a paid checkpoint?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Aurelie Scour

Channel
website contact at https://www.aureliescour.com/ or Behance message

Verified hook
Her site describes 20 years in advertising, AI creative direction, brand identity, and AI-driven advertising, including AI VFX work on the Carl's Jr / Paris Hilton campaign.

Aurelie, your Carl’s Jr / Paris Hilton AI VFX work is a useful reference point because it sits where AI output has to meet advertising taste, brand safety, and client expectations at once.

I’m testing a paid pre-client audit for AI ad visuals: $750 to review 10-20 images or frames and mark what feels cheap, generic, off-brand, or risky before a client sees it.

In your AI advertising work, would an outside creative-director pass like this ever be worth buying, or is the valuable audit always too tied to the original concept to outsource?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Next Action / 05

What happens next.
Nothing automatic.

Arseni chooses which verified buyer drafts to send, and through which exact channel.
Codex may prepare channel-specific copy, but sends nothing without explicit per-channel authorization.
Every sent buyer probe is logged in reach_log.csv with response quality.
Partner/supplier notes, if used, are logged separately in partner_log.csv.
No productization begins until three paid deliveries ship under the same hypothesis.

Verified Sources / 06

Public facts.
Before personalization.

Data Files / 07

Logs and state.
Machine-readable.

hypotheses.json

{
  "generated_at": "2026-06-03",
  "revision": "v2",
  "operating_rule": "Codex prepares; Arseni acts externally. No outbound action without explicit per-channel authorization.",
  "stage_1_gate_order": [
    "Check prior-learning ledger and documented dead/low-fit markets.",
    "Reject candidates that conflict with known prior learning before crisp-up.",
    "Only then write the buyer/persona/price/pain-cost sentence.",
    "Reject if price is below $500 one-time or $200/month."
  ],
  "surviving_hypotheses": [
    {
      "id": "ai_visual_trust_review",
      "source": "output/research/question_chaos_engine_v3/what_visual_or_taste_defects_make_ai_generated_luxury_images_lose_trust_v3_20260505_201016/opportunity_seed_cards.md",
      "source_fragment": "Luxury AI Trust Review: reviews AI-generated visuals with a creative-director review layer before client delivery.",
      "hypothesis_sentence": "AI image creators producing fashion, beauty, or luxury client work will pay $750 one-time to get a creative-director-grade defect audit before showing AI visuals to clients because rejected low-trust images cost about $1,000 per project in re-prompting, rework, and client confidence loss.",
      "buyer_persona": "AI image creator producing fashion, beauty, or luxury client work",
      "price_to_test": "$750 one-time",
      "named_pain": "Client rejection of low-trust AI visuals",
      "pain_cost_to_test": "$1,000/project",
      "status": "survived_stage_1"
    },
    {
      "id": "reference_intelligence",
      "source": "data/workflow_archaeology/reports/top_opportunitie

ask_log.csv

prospect,hypothesis_id,price,outcome,reason

partner_log.csv

attempt,hypothesis_id,track,channel,named_recipient,message_file,sent_date,response,reply_quality

reach_log.csv

attempt,hypothesis_id,channel,named_recipient,message_file,sent_date,response,reply_quality

Appendix / 08

All source documents.
Consolidated.

Active Buyer Probes

4 document(s)

aurelie_scour.md

reach_drafts/ai_visual_trust_review/aurelie_scour.md

Reach Draft: Aurelie Scour

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Channel: website contact at https://www.aureliescour.com/ or Behance message Public hook: Her site describes 20 years in advertising, AI creative direction, brand identity, and AI-driven advertising, including AI VFX work on the Carl's Jr / Paris Hilton campaign. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

Message body: Aurelie, your Carl’s Jr / Paris Hilton AI VFX work is a useful reference point because it sits where AI output has to meet advertising taste, brand safety, and client expectations at once.

I’m testing a paid pre-client audit for AI ad visuals: $750 to review 10-20 images or frames and mark what feels cheap, generic, off-brand, or risky before a client sees it.

In your AI advertising work, would an outside creative-director pass like this ever be worth buying, or is the valuable audit always too tied to the original concept to outsource?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

cherlin_mao.md

reach_drafts/ai_visual_trust_review/cherlin_mao.md

Reach Draft: Cherlin Mao

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Channel: email cherlinmao@gmail.com Public hook: Her portfolio frames her as a concept artist, 3D artist, art lead, and AI visual creator using a 3D/product-visualization background for generative imagery, motion, and commercial storytelling. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

Message body: Cherlin, your portfolio stood out because you are not coming at AI imagery as a prompt-only creator; you have concept art, 3D, art-lead, and outsource-quality-control background underneath the generative work.

For commercial/storytelling AI work like yours, would this have saved enough rework on a recent project to buy, or would it feel redundant because you already do that QC yourself?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

doron_shapira.md

reach_drafts/ai_visual_trust_review/doron_shapira.md

Reach Draft: Doron Shapira

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Channel: Hypear creator profile at https://www.hypear.ai/ Public hook: Hypear lists Doron Shapira as an AI creator working on character/avatar work for beauty and cosmetics. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

Message body: Doron, I saw your Hypear profile around AI character/avatar work for beauty and cosmetics. That category seems especially exposed to subtle trust failures: skin, face, material, expression, and brand tone all have to feel right.

I’m testing a $750 pre-client visual trust audit for 10-20 AI images: mark what looks generic, uncanny, off-brand, or likely to trigger client revisions before the work is sent.

For beauty/avatar AI work, would that second-eye audit have been worth buying recently, or is the revision pain too small to justify a paid checkpoint?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

noemi_finel.md

reach_drafts/ai_visual_trust_review/noemi_finel.md

Reach Draft: Noemi Finel

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Channel: email noemi.finel@gmail.com or Instagram @noemifinel Public hook: Her portfolio lists AI creative/art-direction work for fashion, beauty, and culture, including Armani Beauty, Jean Paul Gaultier, Vilebrequin, UGG, Loewe, and Hermès/IFM references. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

Message body: Noemi, your Armani Beauty / Gaultier / Vilebrequin AI work is exactly the context I’m trying to learn from: AI visuals that have to survive a fashion or beauty client’s taste threshold, not just look technically impressive.

Would you have bought a second-eye audit like that on any recent project, or is your own creative-direction layer already enough that the pain is not worth paying for?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Partner / Supplier Intel

5 document(s)

berangere_cuny.md

partner_drafts/berangere_cuny.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Berangere Cuny

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Track: white-label partner / supplier intel, not buyer probe Channel: email contact@ramisphere.fr or Ramisphere contact page Verified public hook: Ramisphere states it is founded by Berangere Cuny, founder and AI creative director, and lists contact@ramisphere.fr.

Message body: Berangere, I’m not approaching Ramisphere as a basic buyer because your studio already has a strong creative-direction layer around AI fashion, beauty, fragrance, and accessory imagery.

I’m testing whether there is room for a white-label second-eye audit: a fast pre-client review of AI visuals for premium perception, product presence, brand safety, and subtle synthetic defects.

Would that ever be useful as an outside review layer for a studio like Ramisphere, or is the creative judgment too core to outsource?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

cyril_foiret.md

partner_drafts/cyril_foiret.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Cyril Foiret

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Track: senior supplier intel, not buyer probe Channel: email info@maisonmeta.io or Maison Meta contact form Verified public hook: Vogue identifies Cyril Foiret as founder of Maison Meta and creator of AI Fashion Week; Maison Meta positions itself as a Gen AI studio for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands.

Message body: Cyril, Maison Meta is too advanced to be the buyer I’m testing, so I don’t want to pretend this is a normal sales note.

I’m testing a smaller-market offer below the Maison Meta tier: a paid pre-client audit for AI fashion/beauty/luxury images, focused on whether the work still feels generic, off-brand, or not ready for client presentation.

From your view of the market, does that become a real service for less mature AI creators and brand teams, or is the valuable judgment always embedded inside a full creative studio?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

daria_logvis.md

partner_drafts/daria_logvis.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Daria Logvis

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Track: white-label partner / supplier intel, not buyer probe Channel: LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/daria-logvis or Hypear profile Verified public hook: Hypear lists Daria as founder / creative director of 2511 Studio, specializing in AI-generated imagery for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands. LinkedIn confirms 2511 Studio association.

Message body: Daria, I’m not treating you as a normal buyer here because 2511 Studio already sells the kind of AI creative-direction layer I’m testing.

The question is whether there is a white-label or second-opinion version worth exploring: a $750 pre-client audit on AI fashion/beauty/luxury images, focused on what still feels synthetic, off-brand, or not premium enough before a client sees it.

Would a studio like yours ever resell or subcontract that kind of outside visual-trust pass, or is the judgment too central to keep outside your own team?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

dominique_muscianese.md

partner_drafts/dominique_muscianese.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Dominique Muscianese

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Track: white-label partner / supplier intel, not buyer probe Channel: email idontknowagency@gmail.com or IDK Agency contact form Verified public hook: IDK Agency says it is founded by Dominique Muscianese, specializes in high-end AI product photography and elevated brand visuals, and lists idontknowagency@gmail.com.

Message body: Dominique, IDK Agency already sells AI product photography plus creative direction, so I’m not treating you as a standard buyer.

The cleaner question is partner-side: would a studio like yours ever want a white-label second-eye audit before client delivery, focused on product accuracy, premium feel, and what still reads as AI?

If not, that is useful too; it would mean this offer belongs with less mature AI creators or brand teams, not established AI studios.

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

maria_cozar.md

partner_drafts/maria_cozar.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Maria Cozar

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Track: white-label partner / supplier intel, not buyer probe Channel: LinkedIn https://es.linkedin.com/in/mariacozar or The Plaihouse company page Verified public hook: Hypear lists The Plaihouse as an AI Creative Studio founded by Maria Cozar, combining human direction, AI production, and marketing expertise.

Message body: Maria, The Plaihouse already frames the problem very clearly: premium AI content that does not look like AI.

So I’m not asking whether you would buy a normal audit as an end customer. I’m asking whether a white-label pre-client visual trust pass could help studios like yours when volume is high or a project needs an outside senior eye.

Would that be a useful subcontracted layer, or would you only see value if it were built into your own internal process?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Shelved Drafts

3 document(s)

elana_rudick.md

shelved_drafts/reference_intelligence/elana_rudick.md

Reach Draft: Elana Rudick

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: email hello@designisyummy.com Public hook: Design Is Yummy is a women-led, award-winning Montreal studio; RGD profiled Elana as founder/creative director and noted the studio's growth from one-woman show to team. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/reference_intelligence_bait.md

Message body: Elana, the RGD piece about Design Is Yummy growing from your apartment into a team made this test feel relevant: as a studio grows, the "why we chose this direction" context gets harder to keep in one person’s head.

I’m testing a $1,500 manual project-memory teardown for studio owners: reconstruct one project’s references, moodboards, client feedback, and design rationale into a reusable map for future work.

Would this have been worth buying on any recent brand or campaign project, or does that kind of reference/context loss feel real but not budgeted?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

ian_chalmers.md

shelved_drafts/reference_intelligence/ian_chalmers.md

Reach Draft: Ian Chalmers

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: Pivot Design Group inquiry path from Design Directory / Pivot site; public phone listed by Design Directory Public hook: Pivot positions itself around design research, strategic visual design, experience design, and a 25-year practice; Ian also wrote Pivot's "24 things we've learned" series about informing design through different perspectives. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/reference_intelligence_bait.md

Message body: Ian, Pivot’s work seems unusually research-heavy for a design studio, which is why I’m not thinking about generic asset management here.

I’m testing whether studio owners would pay for a manual "project memory" teardown: take one recent project and map the references, research notes, client rationale, and final creative decisions into a reusable studio reference asset.

The price I’m testing is $1,500 for one project. For a studio like Pivot, would this have saved enough duplicated research or context loss to buy, or is the value too invisible to budget for?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

kim_pickett.md

shelved_drafts/reference_intelligence/kim_pickett.md

Reach Draft: Kim Pickett

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: email info@kimbodesign.ca or kim@kimbodesign.ca Public hook: KIMBO Design describes itself as a branding and digital creative agency with long-running work across branding, websites, accessibility, government, advocacy, and sustainable design. Attached bait artifact: ../../bait/reference_intelligence_bait.md

Message body: Kim, KIMBO’s mix of branding, campaigns, web, accessibility, and government work made me wonder how much strategic reference context survives after each project ships.

I’m testing a $1,500 one-project teardown for studio owners: collect the references, rationale, client decisions, and reusable research from a completed project into a studio-memory map.

Would that have saved enough time or improved future project quality to buy, or would it be one of those operational pains that everyone feels but nobody budgets for?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Advisor Intel Drafts

3 document(s)

chris_bolton.md

intel_drafts/chris_bolton.md

Intel Draft: Chris Bolton

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: Grow Your Agency community/contact path Frame: Advisor/community-owner intel only. No price ask.

Message body: Chris, I’m sanity-checking a creative-agency ops pain before putting it in front of buyers.

Do agency owners you work with lose margin because project references, moodboards, client rationale, and research context vanish across Figma, Pinterest, Slack, decks, and email after a project ships?

I’m not asking you to buy anything. I’m trying to learn whether this is a budgeted owner pain or just an annoying workflow smell.

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

drew_mclellan.md

intel_drafts/drew_mclellan.md

Intel Draft: Drew McLellan

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: Agency Management Institute / public contact path Frame: Advisor intel only. No price ask.

Message body: Drew, I’m checking a possible agency-owner pain before sending it to buyers.

The suspected problem: creative agencies lose reusable project context after delivery: references, why a direction was chosen, client feedback, rationale, and research that could have helped the next project.

In your experience, does this cost owners enough to act, or is it one of those real-but-unbudgeted inefficiencies that should be ignored?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

karl_sakas.md

intel_drafts/karl_sakas.md

Intel Draft: Karl Sakas

Hypothesis: reference_intelligence Channel: Sakas & Company / agency-advisor contact path Frame: Advisor intel only. No price ask.

Message body: Karl, I’m pressure-testing an agency-ops pain: small creative agencies repeatedly lose the reference/context trail behind client projects, so future work starts from scratch even when the studio already learned useful things.

From your owner-advisory work, does this show up as a real margin or quality problem, or is it too soft/philosophical to become a paid diagnostic?

No pitch here; I’m trying to avoid mistaking a clever workflow idea for a buyer problem.

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Buyer Maps

2 document(s)

ai_visual_trust_review.md

buyer_map/ai_visual_trust_review.md

Buyer Map: AI Visual Trust Review

Hypothesis: AI image creators producing fashion, beauty, or luxury client work will pay $750 one-time to get a creative-director-grade defect audit before showing AI visuals to clients because rejected low-trust images cost about $1,000 per project in re-prompting, rework, and client confidence loss.

Named venue: Hypear AI creator marketplace and AI/CC creator community. Both concentrate AI-native visual operators working on campaign, beauty, fashion, and brand imagery.

Verified buyer-probe humans:

Supplier / partner-track humans, not buyer probes:

Parked / not sendable:

Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs

Purchase pattern and adjacent anchors: The buyer is an individual creative operator, independent creative director, or small AI creative studio. Purchase is project-based, not committee-based. The correct first ask is a paid pre-client audit, not software. Adjacent spend includes AI generation tools, portfolio production, editing, prompt workflow, art direction, commercial image packages, and client-facing campaign deliverables.

Stage 2 gate: Passed for four buyer probes only. Supplier founders were moved to partner/intel because they sell a similar creative-direction layer. Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs is parked until the individual role and contact path are verified.

Public sources:

https://noemifinel.com/
https://www.cherlinmao.com/
https://www.aureliescour.com/
https://www.hypear.ai/
https://www.ramisphere.com/ramisphere-ai-creative-studio/about
https://idkagency.com/about
https://es.linkedin.com/company/theplaihouse
https://es.linkedin.com/in/mariacozar
https://maisonmeta.io/about/
https://www.myrovialabs.com/ai

reference_intelligence.md

buyer_map/reference_intelligence.md

Buyer Map: Reference Intelligence

Hypothesis: Independent brand and design studio owners will pay $1,500 one-time to turn scattered client references, moodboards, and prior research into a reusable project reference library because repeated research recreation and lost context costs them about $1,200 per month in billable creative time.

Named venue: RGD firm-owner ecosystem and Canadian design-firm directories. The active buyer is a studio principal, founder, or creative director with direct control over project process and margin.

Buyer-recipient rule: Only studio owners/principals get buyer-probe drafts with the $1,500 ask. Advisors and community owners are moved to intel-only drafts with no price ask. Employees, webinar attendees, and individual contributors are dropped.

Named buyer humans:

Ian Chalmers, Pivot Design Group
Elana Rudick, Design Is Yummy
Kim Pickett, KIMBO Design

Intel-only humans:

Purchase pattern and adjacent anchors: The buyer is usually a founder/principal. Purchase can be owner-led if the diagnostic is framed as margin protection and reuse of studio knowledge. The risk is that the pain may be real but absorbed invisibly, making this a budget-threshold test rather than a product test.

Stage 2 gate: Passed for named studio owners only. Advisors are not buyer probes.

Public sources:

https://www.designdirectory.com/pivotdesign
https://pivot.design/insights/24-things-weve-learned-about-design-over-24-years-part-4
https://rgd.ca/articles/meet-three-female-firm-owners-carving-their-own-paths-in-the-design-industry
https://designisyummy.com/en/contact/
https://www.kimbodesign.ca/contact/
https://www.kimbodesign.ca/teammember/kim-pickett/

Bait Artifacts

2 document(s)

ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

bait/ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

AI Visual Trust Review: Bait Artifact

Offer: I will audit 10 to 20 AI-generated images before client presentation and mark the defects that make them feel cheap, generic, uncanny, off-brand, or unsafe for luxury/fashion/beauty use.

Deliverable:

Image-by-image defect notes
Severity labels
Reference-backed correction direction
Client-readiness verdict

Boundary: Manual creative-direction audit only. No product, no training system, no automated scoring.

reference_intelligence_bait.md

bait/reference_intelligence_bait.md

Reference Intelligence: Bait Artifact

Offer: I will turn one recent project into a compact reference-memory teardown: what references were gathered, what decision they supported, what got lost between tools, and what should become reusable studio memory.

Deliverable:

One-page reference map
Reusable reference taxonomy
List of 5 missing context fields that would have prevented duplicated research
One recommended client-presentation structure

Boundary: Manual teardown only. No product, no UI, no template system.

Verification

2 document(s)

alex_forzieri_not_sendable.md

verification/alex_forzieri_not_sendable.md

Parked Draft: Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs

Hypothesis: ai_visual_trust_review Status: not sendable

Reason: Myrovia Labs verifies the studio positioning, studio@myrovialabs.com, and AI creative-direction work for fashion/luxury brands. It does not verify Alex Forzieri as the correct individual contact or buyer for the audit. Sending a personalized individual note without that verification would violate the fact-verification rule.

Verified source: https://www.myrovialabs.com/ai

Possible future frame: If Alex's role is verified, decide whether he is brand-side buyer, supplier, or partner before drafting. If only the studio contact is used, frame it as partner/supplier intel rather than buyer probe.

fact_verification_register.md

verification/fact_verification_register.md

Fact Verification Register

Generated: 2026-06-03

Rule: No draft is sendable unless its hook and contact path are verified on a public page. If the source is unclear, the draft is marked not sendable.

Verified Buyer-Probe Facts

Noemi Finel

Status: verified.

Verified facts:

Site identifies Noemi Finel as an AI creative and art director working across generative imagery, editorial craft, and brand identity for fashion, beauty, and culture.
Site lists noemi.finel@gmail.com.
Site lists @noemifinel.
Site lists Armani Beauty, Vilebrequin, Jean Paul Gaultier, UGG, Loewe, and Hermes/IFM among selected clients / work.

Source: https://noemifinel.com/

Cherlin Mao

Status: verified.

Verified facts:

Site identifies Cherlin Mao as Concept Artist, 3D Artist, Art Lead, and AI Visual Creator.
Site says she has concept art, 3D production, product visualization, art direction, and outsource-management background.
Site lists cherlinmao@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.cherlinmao.com/

Aurelie Scour

Status: verified.

Verified facts:

Site identifies Aurelie Scour as an independent Creative Director and AI VFX artist.
Site says she collaborated on the Carl's Jr commercial starring Paris Hilton as AI lead / AI VFX artist.
Site says she has 20 years in advertising and works in brand identity and AI-driven advertising.

Source: https://www.aureliescour.com/

Doron Shapira

Status: verified enough for Hypear-channel send only.

Verified facts:

Hypear lists Doron Shapira as available.
Hypear describes his work as AI character / avatar work for beauty and cosmetics.
Hypear is the contact path; no separate email was verified.

Source: https://www.hypear.ai/

Verified Partner / Supplier Facts

Daria Logvis

Status: verified as supplier / founder, not buyer.

Verified facts:

Hypear lists Daria as founder / creative director of 2511 Studio.
Hypear says she specializes in AI-generated imagery for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands.
LinkedIn confirms association with 2511 Studio.

Sources:

https://www.hypear.ai/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/daria-logvis

Berangere Cuny

Status: verified as supplier / founder, not buyer.

Verified facts:

Ramisphere says it is founded by Berangere Cuny.
Ramisphere identifies her as founder and AI creative director.
Ramisphere lists contact@ramisphere.fr.

Source: https://www.ramisphere.com/ramisphere-ai-creative-studio/about

Dominique Muscianese

Status: verified as supplier / founder, not buyer.

Verified facts:

IDK Agency says it is founded by Dominique Muscianese.
IDK Agency specializes in high-end AI product photography and elevated brand visuals.
IDK Agency lists idontknowagency@gmail.com.

Source: https://idkagency.com/about

Maria Cozar

Status: verified as supplier / founder, not buyer.

Verified facts:

Hypear lists The Plaihouse as an AI Creative Studio founded by Maria Cozar.
Hypear says The Plaihouse combines human direction, AI production, and marketing expertise.

Sources:

https://www.hypear.ai/
https://es.linkedin.com/in/mariacozar

Cyril Foiret

Status: verified as senior supplier / founder, not buyer.

Verified facts:

Vogue identifies Cyril Foiret as founder of Maison Meta and founder / organizer of AI Fashion Week.
Maison Meta positions itself as a Gen AI studio for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands.
Maison Meta / Crunchbase sources list info@maisonmeta.io.

Sources:

https://www.vogue.com/article/photovogue-festival-2023-talks-generative-ai-practical-use-cases-for-fashion-beauty-and-luxury-industries
https://maisonmeta.io/about/

Not Sendable Yet

Alex Forzieri

Status: not sendable.

Reason: Myrovia Labs' AI studio page verifies studio@myrovialabs.com, Forzieri / LeParmentier portfolio examples, and an AI-powered creative-studio positioning. It does not verify Alex Forzieri as the correct individual buyer/contact for this audit. Do not send the Alex draft until the role and contact path are confirmed.

Source: https://www.myrovialabs.com/ai

Canonical Markdown Pack

1 document(s)

new_product_evaluation_loop_pack.md

New Product Evaluation Loop Pack

Generated: 2026-06-03 Revision: v3

Operating rule: Codex prepares; Arseni acts externally. No outbound message, post, form submission, account creation, or transmission happens without explicit per-channel authorization from Arseni.

Revision Verdict

Do not send v1 or v2 drafts.

This v3 pack fixes the remaining targeting and verification problems:

Buyer probes are separated from supplier / white-label partner probes.
Studio founders who already sell AI creative direction are no longer treated as normal buyers.
Every sendable buyer hook and contact path is verified against a public source.
Alex Forzieri / Myrovia is parked as not sendable because the individual role/contact was not verified.
Reference Intelligence is shelved for this round because three buyer probes are underpowered for the 5% engagement gate.
Winery remains dropped by the prior-learning gate.

Current Stage

Current stage: Stage 3 revised, halted for Arseni.

No outbound action has happened.

Sendable buyer probes:

AI Visual Trust Review: 4 verified drafts

Optional partner / supplier intel:

AI Visual Trust Review: 5 drafts

Shelved:

Reference Intelligence, until it has approximately ten verified studio-owner contacts.

Dropped:

Winery Inventory Triage.

Parked as not sendable:

Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs.

Stage 1 Gate

Before writing a crisp hypothesis, Codex must:

Check Arseni's prior-learning ledger and documented dead / low-fit markets.
Reject candidates that conflict with known prior learning.
Only then write: [Specific buyer persona] will pay $[X] to [outcome] because [named pain costs $Y per period].
Reject if X < $500 one-time or X < $200/month.

Active Hypothesis

AI Visual Trust Review

Why it survives: This maps directly to Arseni's strongest transferable asset: high-end photography, visual taste, luxury/editorial judgment, and creative-direction credibility. The buyer is crisp, the pain is current, and the price is low enough to test as a project-level paid audit without productization.

Important targeting rule: The ideal buyer is not the founder of an established AI creative studio. The ideal buyer is a capable-but-not-senior AI creator, a freelancer working above their level, or a brand/operator using AI without enough senior art direction. Studio founders may be partner or reseller signals, but they are not counted as buyer probes.

Boundary: Manual audit only. No UI, no template, no tool, no domain, no automated scoring.

Shelved Hypothesis

Reference Intelligence

Why shelved: The pain is plausible, but the current set has only three studio-owner buyer probes. Three sends can return zero replies from normal variance and create a false negative against the 5% gate. This should either be expanded to roughly ten verified studio-owner contacts or left aside while AI Visual Trust Review runs first.

Dropped Hypothesis

Winery Inventory Triage

Reason: Dropped after the prior-learning check. Wine/winery concepts were already learned as weak for this product path because of incumbent lock-in, weak transferable asset advantage, and existing winery systems covering much of the generic inventory workflow. The v1 "passed with caution" hedge is now treated correctly as a fail flag.

No winery drafts remain active.

Sendable Buyer Probes

1. Noemi Finel

Track: buyer probe

Channel: email noemi.finel@gmail.com or Instagram @noemifinel

Verified hook: Noemi Finel's site identifies her as an AI creative and art director working across generative imagery, editorial craft, and brand identity for fashion, beauty, and culture. Her site lists Armani Beauty, Vilebrequin, Jean Paul Gaultier, UGG, Loewe, and Hermes/IFM among selected work / clients, and lists noemi.finel@gmail.com.

Source: https://noemifinel.com/

Draft: Noemi, your Armani Beauty / Gaultier / Vilebrequin AI work is exactly the context I’m trying to learn from: AI visuals that have to survive a fashion or beauty client’s taste threshold, not just look technically impressive.

Would you have bought a second-eye audit like that on any recent project, or is your own creative-direction layer already enough that the pain is not worth paying for?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

2. Cherlin Mao

Track: buyer probe

Channel: email cherlinmao@gmail.com

Verified hook: Cherlin Mao's site identifies her as a Concept Artist, 3D Artist, Art Lead, and AI Visual Creator. Her site says she has concept art, 3D production, product visualization, art direction, and outsource-management background, and lists cherlinmao@gmail.com.

Source: https://www.cherlinmao.com/

Draft: Cherlin, your portfolio stood out because you are not coming at AI imagery as a prompt-only creator; you have concept art, 3D, art-lead, and outsource-quality-control background underneath the generative work.

For commercial/storytelling AI work like yours, would this have saved enough rework on a recent project to buy, or would it feel redundant because you already do that QC yourself?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

3. Aurelie Scour

Track: buyer probe

Channel: website contact at https://www.aureliescour.com/ or LinkedIn

Verified hook: Aurelie Scour's site identifies her as an independent Creative Director and AI VFX artist. Her site says she collaborated on the Carl's Jr commercial starring Paris Hilton as AI lead / AI VFX artist and has 20 years in advertising.

Source: https://www.aureliescour.com/

Draft: Aurelie, your Carl’s Jr / Paris Hilton AI VFX work is a useful reference point because it sits where AI output has to meet advertising taste, brand safety, and client expectations at once.

I’m testing a paid pre-client audit for AI ad visuals: $750 to review 10-20 images or frames and mark what feels cheap, generic, off-brand, or risky before a client sees it.

In your AI advertising work, would an outside creative-director pass like this ever be worth buying, or is the valuable audit always too tied to the original concept to outsource?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

4. Doron Shapira

Track: buyer probe

Channel: Hypear creator profile at https://www.hypear.ai/

Verified hook: Hypear lists Doron Shapira as available and describes his work as AI character / avatar work for beauty and cosmetics. No separate email was verified, so this is sendable only through Hypear or another verified public profile if found.

Source: https://www.hypear.ai/

Draft: Doron, I saw your Hypear profile around AI character/avatar work for beauty and cosmetics. That category seems especially exposed to subtle trust failures: skin, face, material, expression, and brand tone all have to feel right.

I’m testing a $750 pre-client visual trust audit for 10-20 AI images: mark what looks generic, uncanny, off-brand, or likely to trigger client revisions before the work is sent.

For beauty/avatar AI work, would that second-eye audit have been worth buying recently, or is the revision pain too small to justify a paid checkpoint?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Partner / Supplier Intel

These drafts are not buyer probes and must not be logged in reach_log.csv. Use partner_log.csv if Arseni chooses to send any of them.

Daria Logvis

Track: white-label partner / supplier intel

Channel: LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/daria-logvis or Hypear profile

Verified hook: Hypear lists Daria as founder / creative director of 2511 Studio, specializing in AI-generated imagery for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands. LinkedIn confirms 2511 Studio association.

Draft: Daria, I’m not treating you as a normal buyer here because 2511 Studio already sells the kind of AI creative-direction layer I’m testing.

Would a studio like yours ever resell or subcontract that kind of outside visual-trust pass, or is the judgment too central to keep outside your own team?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Berangere Cuny

Track: white-label partner / supplier intel

Channel: email contact@ramisphere.fr or Ramisphere contact page

Verified hook: Ramisphere says it is founded by Berangere Cuny, identifies her as founder and AI creative director, and lists contact@ramisphere.fr.

Draft: Berangere, I’m not approaching Ramisphere as a basic buyer because your studio already has a strong creative-direction layer around AI fashion, beauty, fragrance, and accessory imagery.

I’m testing whether there is room for a white-label second-eye audit: a fast pre-client review of AI visuals for premium perception, product presence, brand safety, and subtle synthetic defects.

Would that ever be useful as an outside review layer for a studio like Ramisphere, or is the creative judgment too core to outsource?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Dominique Muscianese

Track: white-label partner / supplier intel

Channel: email idontknowagency@gmail.com or IDK Agency contact form

Verified hook: IDK Agency says it is founded by Dominique Muscianese, specializes in high-end AI product photography and elevated brand visuals, and lists idontknowagency@gmail.com.

Draft: Dominique, IDK Agency already sells AI product photography plus creative direction, so I’m not treating you as a standard buyer.

The cleaner question is partner-side: would a studio like yours ever want a white-label second-eye audit before client delivery, focused on product accuracy, premium feel, and what still reads as AI?

If not, that is useful too; it would mean this offer belongs with less mature AI creators or brand teams, not established AI studios.

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Maria Cozar

Track: white-label partner / supplier intel

Channel: LinkedIn https://es.linkedin.com/in/mariacozar or The Plaihouse company page

Verified hook: Hypear lists The Plaihouse as an AI Creative Studio founded by Maria Cozar, combining human direction, AI production, and marketing expertise.

Draft: Maria, The Plaihouse already frames the problem very clearly: premium AI content that does not look like AI.

Would that be a useful subcontracted layer, or would you only see value if it were built into your own internal process?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Cyril Foiret

Track: senior supplier intel

Channel: email info@maisonmeta.io or Maison Meta contact form

Verified hook: Vogue identifies Cyril Foiret as founder of Maison Meta and founder of AI Fashion Week; Maison Meta positions itself as a Gen AI studio for fashion, beauty, and luxury brands.

Draft: Cyril, Maison Meta is too advanced to be the buyer I’m testing, so I don’t want to pretend this is a normal sales note.

From your view of the market, does that become a real service for less mature AI creators and brand teams, or is the valuable judgment always embedded inside a full creative studio?

Do not send without Arseni authorization.

Parked / Not Sendable

Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs

Source: https://www.myrovialabs.com/ai

Logs

reach_log.csv is only for buyer probes.

Columns: attempt,hypothesis_id,channel,named_recipient,message_file,sent_date,response,reply_quality

partner_log.csv is only for partner / supplier intel.

Columns: attempt,hypothesis_id,track,channel,named_recipient,message_file,sent_date,response,reply_quality

ask_log.csv is only for calls with buyer asks.

Columns: prospect,hypothesis_id,price,outcome,reason

All logs are still empty except headers because no outbound action has happened.

Halt Point

This loop is paused at Stage 3.

Next allowed action: Arseni may manually send selected verified buyer probes, or explicitly authorize a specific set of outbound messages by channel.

Not allowed without new authorization:

Sending messages
Posting in communities
Submitting forms
Creating accounts
Building product infrastructure
Creating templates, UI, domains, or automated tools

Status

1 document(s)

status.md

Weekly Status

ai_visual_trust_review

Current stage: Stage 3 revised again, four verified buyer probes drafted, waiting for Arseni outbound authorization. Last contact action: None. Codex prepared drafts only. Next contact action: Arseni chooses exact verified buyer draft(s) and channel(s), then sends manually or explicitly authorizes specific outbound messages. Days since last reply: N/A.

ai_visual_trust_review_partner_track

Current stage: Partner / supplier intel drafts prepared separately from buyer probes. Last contact action: None. Codex prepared drafts only. Next contact action: Optional. Use only if Arseni wants white-label / reseller signal, and log in partner_log.csv, not reach_log.csv. Days since last reply: N/A.

reference_intelligence

Current stage: Shelved for this round because three studio-owner drafts are underpowered for the 5% engagement gate. Last contact action: None. Codex prepared drafts only. Next contact action: Either expand to approximately ten verified studio-owner buyer probes, or leave shelved while AI Visual Trust Review runs first. Days since last reply: N/A.

winery_inventory_triage

Current stage: Dropped before outbound. Last contact action: None. Next contact action: None. Days since last reply: N/A.

One active offer.Four verified probes.

Who is active.Who is not.

Every person.Clickable source path.

Verified drafts.No blast.

What happens next.Nothing automatic.

Public facts.Before personalization.

Logs and state.Machine-readable.

hypotheses.json

ask_log.csv

partner_log.csv

reach_log.csv

All source documents.Consolidated.

Active Buyer Probes

aurelie_scour.md

Reach Draft: Aurelie Scour

cherlin_mao.md

Reach Draft: Cherlin Mao

doron_shapira.md

Reach Draft: Doron Shapira

noemi_finel.md

Reach Draft: Noemi Finel

Partner / Supplier Intel

berangere_cuny.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Berangere Cuny

cyril_foiret.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Cyril Foiret

daria_logvis.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Daria Logvis

dominique_muscianese.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Dominique Muscianese

maria_cozar.md

Partner / Supplier Draft: Maria Cozar

Shelved Drafts

elana_rudick.md

Reach Draft: Elana Rudick

ian_chalmers.md

Reach Draft: Ian Chalmers

kim_pickett.md

Reach Draft: Kim Pickett

Advisor Intel Drafts

chris_bolton.md

Intel Draft: Chris Bolton

drew_mclellan.md

Intel Draft: Drew McLellan

karl_sakas.md

Intel Draft: Karl Sakas

Buyer Maps

ai_visual_trust_review.md

Buyer Map: AI Visual Trust Review

reference_intelligence.md

Buyer Map: Reference Intelligence

Bait Artifacts

ai_visual_trust_review_bait.md

AI Visual Trust Review: Bait Artifact

reference_intelligence_bait.md

Reference Intelligence: Bait Artifact

Verification

alex_forzieri_not_sendable.md

Parked Draft: Alex Forzieri / Myrovia Labs

fact_verification_register.md

Fact Verification Register

Verified Buyer-Probe Facts

Verified Partner / Supplier Facts

Not Sendable Yet

Canonical Markdown Pack

new_product_evaluation_loop_pack.md

New Product Evaluation Loop Pack

Revision Verdict

Current Stage

Stage 1 Gate

Active Hypothesis

AI Visual Trust Review

Shelved Hypothesis

Reference Intelligence

Dropped Hypothesis

Winery Inventory Triage

Sendable Buyer Probes

1. Noemi Finel

2. Cherlin Mao

3. Aurelie Scour

One active offer.
Four verified probes.

Who is active.
Who is not.

Every person.
Clickable source path.

Verified drafts.
No blast.

What happens next.
Nothing automatic.

Public facts.
Before personalization.

Logs and state.
Machine-readable.

All source documents.
Consolidated.