Describe who you need to reach, write the message, say what it should achieve, and test it on agents drawn from real data. You get back how it was understood, how far that drifted from your intent, and what to change. Then you run it again, until you can send it with confidence.
Meaning shifts as a communication passes through people with different knowledge, beliefs and contexts. Finding out how has meant weeks of fieldwork per question — so most messages are sent on judgement alone. Runa gives you a tested answer before you commit.
Both services run on the same engine and the same agents from ARDA. One tells you how a message is understood. The other estimates what it does to a measured outcome. Populations are available today for Argentina, with additional Latin American markets, and further services, to follow.
Test a message on a simulated population and measure the gap between what you meant and what people took away.
Measure how much a message, or a sequence of messages, moves a variable such as candidate approval over the next twelve weeks.
Write who you need to reach, the way you would brief a colleague: where they live, their age, their income, what they do. ARDA matches that description against real population data, currently for Argentina, and returns the agents who fit. Each agent is a member of your target audience, not a persona written for the occasion. How the agents are built →
The agents ARDA returns are your audience. Each one carries demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, political, cultural, informational and behavioural context at once: one person modelled horizontally, not a consumer here and a voter there. Adjust the filters if the match needs tightening.
If you already have an audience, bring it. Connect your Instagram insights, ad audiences, web analytics or a customer file, and ARDA weighs the agents it returns against the people who actually follow, buy from or read you. The result is an ARDA tuned to your audience, used for your tests only, inside your workspace.
The target is set. Now paste the communication and write the intended response: the reading you want and the action it should produce. Distortion is measured against that goal, not against how loud the reaction is.
One communication, one intended response, one target. Runa holds the target constant so every rewrite is compared against the same agents.
Every agent reads the same message from its own position and returns a structured response.
Dominant reading, where the audience split, which segments drifted furthest, and a rewrite to rerun against the same 400 agents. Each result ships with its range and its blind spots.
Runa is not test → report. Change a word, a framing, the target or the intended response, and run it again against the same population. Every run is stored, so versions can be compared against each other rather than against a memory of the last round.
Swap a term, drop a clause, reorder the argument — and see which specific edit moved the reading.
Run the same message against a different geography or segment to find where it stops working.
Redefine the intended response and measure the same text against a different objective.
One number for the distance between your intended response and what the agents took away, always with its range and always placed on the same scale: under 25 is clear to send, 25 to 44 needs revision, 45 and above should not go out as it is. First drafts tested on Runa average 52, so a first result in the fifties is normal. What matters is where the rewrite lands.
Every agent’s interpretation placed by proximity to your intent, so clusters and outliers are visible at a glance.
The message as the population would repeat it, ranked by how much of the audience holds each version.
A tight distribution and a split one can produce the same average. Dispersion tells you which you have.
The same message scored per segment, so you can see which groups the wording is losing.
Low-frequency readings are reported rather than rounded away — small groups are often where a problem starts.
Specific edits tied to the readings they are driving — each one a candidate for the next run.
Read the outputs as a reliable diagnosis of risk in the wording, not as a forecast of the public reaction. We say plainly what the method does and does not do — that is what makes the result something you can act on.