The objections, answered plainly.
Nothing gated behind a click — every answer is open. Skim the list, or read straight through.
Those speed up a person who's still doing the work — researching, checking, drafting, only faster. ProseWright moves that work to agents and leaves you the editing. It's a different arrangement, not a quicker version of the same one. And it verifies before it writes, which most tools don't.
It re-fetches each source and confirms the claim against what the source actually says, marking every citation verified, flagged, or failed. The draft is written only from citations that passed and were kept. Nothing reaches the page on the strength of sounding plausible.
A source you cited changed after you cited it — enough that it no longer supports your claim the way it did — while the link still works. A dead-link checker won't catch that; the page loads fine. ProseWright compares each source against the snapshot taken when you cited it and flags the difference.
It works from a voice you define and drafts against it. You direct and edit — the output is a draft you shape, not a finished thing you're handed.
The person publishing work under their own name and carrying the whole operation themselves. It's built for one, not a team product with the seats removed.
Yes. Sources accumulate into a corpus you own, and inherit across editions and across a series — the next piece starts from what the last one established.
The thinking and the editing. The agents handle research, verification, and the first draft; you decide what to say, judge what's worth keeping, and shape the final.