Technical evaluators typically read white papers backwards. They start with the conclusion and analyze how well that supports the argument. From there, they assess the methodology and footnotes, and, if the footnotes cannot hold up to a citation check, everything else is discarded. This is why it is so costly to have a fabricated reference in an argument with weak points.
We use the data you shared, works you tested, and published sources you can share. Each citation in the final paper is a source that your writer had to open. The reference list is provided with links so your reviewers can confirm them quickly.
A whitepaper must function on two different levels of reading at the same time. While skimmers rely on a claim and supporting data as well as captioned diagrams to drive the argument, evaluators need details on the methodology in order to probe. This means that the author must commit early on to what remains in the main document and what gets placed in an appendix.
Fabricated citations are the known failure and do the most damage in this case. A white paper has an author name, company logo, and goes to procurement. One reference which resolves to nothing makes a reviewer stop and forward to others.
First research, then outline. A solid first step involves searching for sources and reading them to understand what arguments exist before you bend the evidence and sources to create an outline. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself explaining your arguments to your group before the final draft, and losing the surprise you intended to keep.
Every reference is checked against the sentence it supports. We trace back numbers to the dataset or test, and in cases where a claim is based on your internal testing we ensure the paper says so specifically to indicate that (rather than implying independent verification). We do not soften overstated claims, but rather flag them back to you.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical technical whitepaper | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short paper | 2,000 | $200 | $2 | $202 |
| Standard paper | 3,500 | $350 | $3.50 | $353.50 |
| In-depth paper | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes. Send two or three pieces you like the sound of, or your style guide. Matching an established voice is ordinary work for a writer and close to impossible for a model that has never read your back catalogue.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
Yes, and we also present this as internal. Surviving evaluator tests show who ran the test, what configuration it was run on, and when. Showing vendor testing as if it were independent is a surefire way to lose a technical reader forever.
We deliver the text, the figure briefs, and the caption copy to you ready for your designer. The word count speaks more to the writing rather than the layout. Most clients have a brand team that already has a template, and most of the time that will have to be used anyway.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We have never recorded our three architecture talks but we have now. One of the teams who take note of things and join in a session and then compile a summary of the two positions once we’ve made our decision. Saw that as a good opportunity to strengthen their practice so no longer have any new hires asking questions. Parent 1: rewr22567 Parent 2: autograder
Most writers omit error response text, or post the status codes with no surrounding context. Ours explained what they thought the caller did wrong with a short response per status. Because of this explanation, our support queue for that endpoint has gone quiet.
Before drafting, the client sent over eleven questions. Two of the questions asked about failure states that we had never documented before. Responding to these questions took me a morning to complete, but now the internal notes have improved. The guide is the second best thing that came from this order.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees