How it worksFeaturesIndustriesPricingSign in
For media & editorial teams

Stand behind every line.

Editorial decisions are made fast and judged in public. Wavn gives editorial teams a place to pressure-test angles and claims across independent minds, flag what can't be supported, and keep a record of the call, without ever outsourcing judgment to a machine.

Editorial judgment is the product, and a confident AI summary is a liability dressed as help, it launders an unverified claim into clean prose. Wavn is built to resist that. It surfaces disagreement between independent minds, explicitly flags what none of them can support, and keeps the reasoning behind a call. The decision stays with the editor; the record stays with the desk.

The decisions you live with

Where the cost of getting it wrong is real.

Which angle holds up

Choosing the framing that survives scrutiny and a correction request, not just the one that reads best on the first pass.

Can this claim be stood behind?

Deciding whether an assertion is supportable enough to publish, when the cost of being wrong is public and reputational.

What to cover, and what to pass on

Allocating limited editorial attention across more stories than the team can ever properly do.

Why we ran it that way

Keeping the reasoning behind an editorial call, for the record, the readers, and the inevitable post-publication question.

How Wavn fits the work

Your workflow, with the thinking kept.

Argue the angle before readers do

Debate

Have the minds take opposing views on a framing, so the strongest counter-take shows up in the edit, not the comments.

Flag what can't be supported

Converge

Converge explicitly marks the claims no mind can substantiate, a fast, honest check before a line goes to print.

An editorial call, on the record

Decide

Lock the decision with the dissent and open questions kept, the account you'll want if the piece is challenged.

Desk memory

Memory

Recall how the desk handled a similar story or source before, so editorial standards stay consistent across the team.

No single model's slant

Independence

Three independent minds reduce the chance one provider's bias quietly shapes the framing, and OpenAI is never used.

See it work

One media & editorial project, walked live.

This is The investigation framing, stage by stage. Click any step on the line and the screen follows.

The investigation framing · Argued
ShareJourney
Run the strong framing on one shaky claim, or the defensible one?
Wave · asked all 3 minds · Debate
Claude
The central claim sits in contested, not supported. One more source moves it.
Gemini
Two other outlets are circling the same story. The timeline pressure is real, not imagined.
Cohere
Run defensible now, strong later if the source lands. A correction costs more than a day.
Converge2 agree · 1 contested
Agreed
The central claim is not yet supported
The competitive pressure is real
Contested
Whether to hold 48 hours for the source
Unsupported
Flagged claims, named out loud

Three minds take positions and argue them properly. Converge maps the real shape.

The Guide

Deciding is half the work. Wavn walks the rest.

A thought caught on your phone becomes a project. Three minds argue it, the call is locked with its dissent, and then the road opens: the accounts you'll need in plain words, a spec in one click, documents and decks and spreadsheets generated from the decision, Claude connected to build the real thing, and the launch on a Schedule that briefs you before every date. The Journey report can replay all of it, months later, when someone asks why.

IdeaArguedDecided4Set up5Spec6Built7Scheduled
Illustrative scenario

An independent newsroom

Media & journalism · A cross-border investigative outlet

An editor is weighing how to frame a sensitive investigation. The strongest version of the story rests on one claim that's compelling but not fully nailed down, and the deadline is hours away.

In Wavn
  • 01The proposed framing and the load-bearing claim go onto a canvas as blocks.
  • 02A wave runs Debate, the minds argue the framing from a sceptic's and a defender's side.
  • 03Converge flags that the central claim sits in 'contested', not 'supported', and names exactly what would move it.
  • 04The editor locks a Decide block: a more defensible framing, the claim hedged, and the reasoning kept for the record.
The outcome

The story ran in a version the desk could fully stand behind, with the one shaky claim handled honestly instead of overstated. When a source later pushed back, the editorial reasoning was already on the record.

This scenario is illustrative, a composite of how media & editorial teams work, not a named client. Wavn is invite-only and we don't publish customer names without permission.

Wavn doesn't write or edit your journalism, and it isn't a source. It's a fast, honest check on the thinking behind an editorial call, and a record of why you made it, kept where it counts.

Bring it to your media & editorial team.

Wavn is invite-only while we grow it carefully. Walk the road and see it for yourself.