Outbound a human edits
Research and draft at machine pace; put a named person in front of every send. The draft is assembled, the personalisation is real, and somebody reads it before it goes.
The four answers
- Who buys it
- Firms doing cold outbound who have been sold full automation, and are quietly aware the replies stopped.
- What stays human
- The edit, and the send. Not as a compliance formality, as the thing that makes it work at all.
- How it is charged
- Flat monthly per seat of human review, not per email sent. Pricing per send is what produces volume nobody read.
- The system behind it
- None of ours yet. It is built on your systems and the model provider’s, and saying otherwise would imply a platform we have not written.
Before you buy it
Hunter’s State of Email Outreach 2026, 31 million emails: manually edited emails reply at 5.2% against 4.4% fully automated (an 18% lift for the human). Two custom attributes lift replies from 3.6% to 5.6%. And 69% of the US decision makers Hunter surveyed say AI-written email bothers them, which is the finding nobody selling automation quotes.
And the general test, which applies to this offer as much as any other: six questions that settle whether a task should be automated at all. Five of its eight verdicts are some form of no.
Checked 24 September 2026. Any figure on this page is restated from Does AI-written outreach work? 31 million emails say something uncomfortable, We checked five AI statistics we were about to publish. Three had no source and What to automate first in an advice firm, and what to never automate, where it carries its source, its weight and the date it is next due, and where it is listed on the public register with every other number on this site. If one has gone stale before we got to it, tell us.
One job, named. Tell us which.
Not “automate the back office”. The specific thing that is eating the hours, with the six audit records written into the statement of work before anything is built.