How Academic Weapon works
Academic Weapon is the part of UnTXT that reads your text properly. Two frontier models argue over it passage by passage, and a third settles anything they cannot agree on between them.
It is not a separate tool you go and find. In the web app it is what happens when you press Analyse.
Why an argument rather than a score
A single detector reading a passage gives you one opinion carrying that detector's own blind spots, and you have no way of knowing which of the two you are looking at.
So your passage goes to Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol separately, each of them reading it cold, and that part matters rather more than it sounds: if the two reviewers started from a shared position then their agreeing later would tell you nothing at all. Each one makes the case for the text being human-written, then takes apart what the other said, and then gives a verdict without being shown where the argument had got to.
When they land in the same place, you have two differently-built systems trained on different material reaching the same conclusion about the same paragraph, which is a much harder thing to arrive at by accident than one system's opinion.
When they split, which happens more than you would expect, Claude Sonnet 5 reads the disputed passage on its own without being told which way either of the first two leaned, and breaks the tie.
What comes back
Passages, marked one of two ways.
Gold is a passage the reviewers agreed reads as genuinely written by a person — natural variation, a specific detail, a turn that a model would have smoothed out. Most detectors only ever look for risk, which means the best available outcome is that nothing was found. Marking what is actually yours gives you something to keep and something to write towards, and it is the part people tell us they did not expect.
Grey is a passage they agreed reads as machine-written. Generic phrasing, structure that repeats, polish where polish does not belong, transitions you can see coming. Click it and you get what each reviewer said about that specific passage, including where they disagreed before settling.
Grey does not mean cheating, does not mean an accusation, and does not mean anybody has decided anything about you. It means two careful readers would question that paragraph, and it tells you which paragraph.
What it costs
An Academic Weapon run on a piece of around 1,100 words comes to roughly 89 CVT, and it is the only kind of run the web app does — there is no cheaper heuristic pass to choose instead, because a second, weaker answer sitting next to the real one turned out to be worth less than nothing.
That gap is real work rather than a markup — three frontier models reading the same document, twice over, and arguing about it. The exact estimate is shown before you confirm, and it comes out of whatever balance you have, whether that is a monthly allowance or free credit.
Every new account gets one complimentary run that costs nothing against the balance, which exists so you can see what the thing actually does before deciding whether it is worth paying for.
When it is worth it
For anything with stakes on it. A dissertation, a piece of coursework that carries a module, an application, a document going to a client. Those are the moments where knowing which two paragraphs to reread is worth the credit.
For an early draft you are still restructuring, it is usually not. The passages will change before you submit anyway, and it is worth saving the run for the version you actually intend to hand in.
Very short pieces are turned away rather than guessed at. Below roughly 250 words there is not enough on the page for two reviewers to genuinely disagree about, and we would rather say no than hand you a confident reading of four sentences.
What it is not
It is not proof. Detection is probabilistic and stays probabilistic no matter how many models you point at it, and human writing genuinely does read as machine writing sometimes. Sataklela OÜ accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of these results.
It does not publish an accuracy figure, and neither will we. Every accuracy number in this market comes from a benchmark chosen by whoever is quoting it, ours included, and we would rather hand you the reasoning behind each mark and let you judge it than hand you a number to trust.
It will not rewrite your work. There is no button that takes your draft and gives you back a cleaner one. Agency is yours to keep. Autonomy is ours to offer.
Talking about it afterwards
If a tutor asks how you checked your work, describe the process rather than quoting a result.
"I ran it through a tool where two independent models read each passage and argue it out, with a third one deciding when they disagree. Three passages came back marked, and I rewrote them in my own words."
That describes something you did. It also happens to be the sort of engagement most tutors are pleased to hear about.
Questions we get asked
Does using it make my essay look suspicious?
No. It runs before you submit, on your own account, and nobody sees it but you.
It said my writing is fine and my tutor flagged it anyway. Now what?
Your tutor has context no model has — your previous work, what you said in a seminar, how the argument developed. That is not a contradiction so much as two different readings, and theirs includes things ours cannot see.
Why not four models, or ten?
Diminishing returns against real cost. Two frontier models built differently and trained differently already covers the ground, and the third earns its place only when the first two genuinely split.
Why show me the disagreements?
Because a mark that came from a real argument is worth more to you than a mark that came from a consensus you have to take on trust, and because seeing where two capable readers split is often the most informative thing on the page.
Try it — the first 1,000 words are free, and the first Academic Weapon run is on us
Academic Weapon results are informational. Sataklela OÜ makes no representations about legal admissibility and accepts no liability for decisions made on the basis of them.