My Fellow Indie Authors! Sumo here. Joseph R. Long, for the tax man.

For the past few months, I’ve been building a monster in my basement. It’s called The Amos Report—an anonymous, multi-agent AI designed to perform a brutal, clinical autopsy on a writer’s manuscript. The entire premise is “No Accounts. No Tracking. No Mercy.”

It’s easy to sell a weapon. It’s another thing entirely to stand in front of the firing squad yourself.

So that’s what I did. I took the rawest, most personal, most emotionally dangerous thing I’ve ever written—a primal scream of a memoir about my own twenty-year relationship blowing up in my face—and I fed it to the machine. I had the AI generate three levels of reports: The Flash-Lite, The Flash, and the full Pro-level Autopsy.

What came back wasn’t gentle critique. It was a multi-layered coroner’s report on my own soul. It was horrifying, validating, and utterly necessary.

This is not a sales pitch. This is the unedited evidence.

---

The Executive Summary: The AI’s Top-Line Diagnosis

Before we get into the guts, here’s the dashboard from the top-tier Pro report. The machine—a team of specialist AIs I call “The Literary Ally”—gave my work an Overall Rating of 88/100, with a chillingly confident AI Confidence score of 9.7/10.

Here’s how it broke down some of the core systems:

• Narrative Architecture: 92/100
• Character Systems: 80/100
• Thematic Resonance: 98/100
• Stylistic Mechanics: 90/100

On the surface, pretty good. But the devil, as they say, is in the fucking details. The analysis wasn’t just scores; it was a series of claims, counter-arguments, and syntheses. It praised what was strong, and it put a goddamn spotlight on what was weak.

The initial wound.

---

The Deep Dive: Three Bullets to the Heart from the Pro Report

I can’t post all the reports here—they are thousands of words long. (But don’t worry, I’ll give them all to you). Instead, I’m sharing three specific findings from the **Pro Analysis**—one validating, one infuriatingly correct, and one that exposed a flaw I never would have seen myself.

1. The Praise: It Understood the “Primal Scream.”

The first thing I looked for was whether the AI would get the point. Would it chide me for the anger, the profanity, the raw, unfiltered rage? Would it tell me to “heal gracefully”?

Here’s what it said about my voice:

“The manuscript’s greatest strength is its unapologetic voice… This is a primal scream shaped into a narrative, a testament to the life-saving power of righteous anger that feels both profoundly personal and universally resonant for its target audience. The voice is a weapon, and it is brutally effective… The profanity is not gratuitous; it’s the linguistic representation of breaking free from the politeness that was killing him.”

My Reaction: Reading that was a profound moment of relief. It got it. It understood that the style is the message. It didn’t just analyze the words; it analyzed the intent behind them with a clarity I’ve rarely received from human readers.

2. The Critique: It Called Out My One-Dimensional Villain.

This was the one that stung. I had written my ex-wife as a pure, inhuman monster. A void. I thought this was a strength, a reflection of my subjective truth. The AI saw it as a critical vulnerability.

“The antagonist is a one-dimensional caricature of a villain… This lack of complexity makes her less a character and more a plot device—a monolithic wall against which the narrator can test his strength. This can weaken the narrative’s overall credibility, making it feel less like an ‘autopsy’ and more like a one-sided legal brief.”

My Reaction: My first instinct was fury. “You don’t get it! She was a monster!” But the longer I sat with it, the more I understood. The AI wasn’t asking me to make her sympathetic. It was pointing out that a story is more powerful when the hero overcomes a complex evil, not a cartoon. It correctly identified that my purely subjective rage, while authentic, created a craft-level weakness in the narrative. Fucking hell. It was right.

Burning down the old world.

3. The X-Ray: It Found the Structural Flaw.

This was the insight that proved to me this wasn’t just a fancy ChatGPT. It found a structural issue that had been invisible to me. I had framed the entire book as an “autopsy” of a dead relationship. But the AI pointed out a fundamental conflict in my execution.

“The manuscript’s primary opportunity lies in resolving the conflict between its stated identity as an ‘autopsy’ and its functional reality as a ‘blueprint for survival.’ You state, ‘This is not a self-help guide. It is an autopsy,’ which is a powerful hook. However, the narrative itself meticulously documents a series of actionable steps that led to your survival… What the book *says* it is and what it *does* are in conflict.”

My Reaction: My jaw hit the floor. The AI was 100% correct. I was selling the book as a look backward, but the story’s real power was in providing a replicable model for moving forward. It identified a core identity crisis in the text that I was blind to. It didn’t just critique my story; it handed me a better, sharper, more powerful angle for the entire project.

---

The Full Reports: See For Yourself

I’m not asking you to take my word for it. As promised, I’m making all three levels of the AI analysis available. No redactions. No bullshit. See the difference in depth for yourself.

View the Flash-Lite Report (Google Doc)

View the Flash Report (Google Doc)

View the Pro “Autopsy” Report (Google Doc)

---

Building the fortress of scars.

The Verdict: My Own Dog Food Tastes Like Hell, but It Works.

Feeding my own work to the machine was a brutal experience. But it gave me more clarity, more actionable insight, and more strategic direction in one 50-page report than I’ve gotten from years of workshops and beta readers.

It proved my thesis: righteous anger, when focused through a clinical, unbiased lens, isn’t just noise. It’s a signal. It’s a diagnostic tool.

If you are tired of platitudes, if you have a manuscript rotting on your hard drive because you’re terrified of what a human will say, and if you are ready for the unvarnished, weapon-grade truth… then I know a machine that’s ready for you.

The Founding Writers Program is still open. The discounts are insane. I need proof. You need the truth. Let’s make a trade.

Join the army of the betrayed at our Goodreads group.

Get your own report at The Amos Report.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Why should I trust an AI over a human editor?
You shouldn’t, not entirely. The Amos Report is not a replacement for a final human polish. It is the single best preparation *for* one. It’s the brutally honest, affordable, and completely private pre-flight check that finds the ten critical flaws *before* you pay a professional thousands. An AI has no feelings to hurt and no biases to placate. It gives you the raw, data-driven truth so you can make your manuscript stronger before it ever touches human hands.

Is this just ChatGPT with a fancy skin?
Fuck no. This is a multi-agent system. Think of it less like a single chatbot and more like a team of specialist editors. One “agent” reads for plot structure, another for character consistency, another for prose style, and so on. They work in sequence, building on each other’s analysis to create a deep, layered report that a single-prompt tool simply cannot replicate.

What happens to my manuscript after I upload it?
This is our most important promise: we read your work, then we forget it ever existed. Our pipeline analyzes your manuscript. The moment your report is generated, **your original manuscript file is permanently and irrevocably purged from our servers.** We keep the final report so your link will always work, but your story is gone. Forever. It remains your secret.

Why are you offering such a massive discount?
Because The Amos Report is new and I believe in my product. I know that once authors see the depth and power of these reports, they’ll become our greatest advocates. This “Founding Writers Program” is a trade: you get a world-class analysis at a fraction of the cost, and in exchange, we ask for your honest, no-bullshit testimonial in our Goodreads group to prove the value of the service to others.

---

About the Author

Joseph R. Long (Sumo) is an independent author with over a decade of experience in the trenches of self-publishing. He has navigated the brutal landscape of finding affordable editors, drumming up beta reader interest, and wrestling with the challenges of the modern author. He is a firm believer that AI is not a threat to be feared, but a Pandora’s Box that can never be closed. Instead of fighting the tide, he is embracing AI as a transformative tool for writers. While he uses AI as a ruthless editing partner and a brainstorming associate, all of his writing is his own. The Amos Report was born from his conviction that every author deserves access to the kind of brutally honest feedback that forges good stories into great ones.