A real anonymized Premium Report end-to-end — every category breakdown across all 42 features, ranked weaknesses, EC tiering, narrative spike map, school-by-school fit, essay angles, and a six-week roadmap. The sections below are exactly what your $15 file looks like.
You read as a top-tier academic with conventional polish — and a missing narrative spike. Without a sharper through-line, your file blends with ~9,000 indistinguishable Ivy reaches. The roadmap on the right is the shortest path to closing that gap before submit.
Every modeled feature, scored against the matched-cohort distribution. Confidence flag shows how much data the score is built on (H = high, M = medium, L = low).
The spike map shows the relative narrative weight of each activity in the reader's room. Quant research and open-source carry the file; everything below the dotted line is breadth, not signal.
Tier 1–4 against the matched cohort. Tier 1 is rare, Tier 4 is filler. Where a reader would actually pause is annotated in the note column.
Five ranked weaknesses — Critical first, structural last. Severity is calibrated against this cohort, not a generic curve. Two of these are fixable in under six weeks; one is structural and is here for transparency.
Eight of nine activities reduce to a generic "smart student doing smart-student things." Without an explicit unifying thesis tying quant research → open-source → math team into one domain, your file passes every numeric filter and loses at committee.
Admit median for this profile shape is 2.1 Tier-1 activities; you have 1. The lab project is real Tier-1; nothing else clears the bar. This is the single highest-leverage fixable item before submit.
"Why X" supplements name the school, not the seminar. Readers describe this pattern as "could have been written for any T20." Specific course/lab references move this score 18+ points in revision.
Your high school sends 6–9 admits to T20 each cycle. The pool-density adjustment is already applied; this is a baseline you cannot move, only narrate around. Mentioned for transparency.
Your Common App essay reads as a personal-growth narrative; your supplements describe a CS+Econ academic. Readers hold the file together for you, but the seam is visible. One revision pass aligning the two raises this 12–15 points.
Directional fit across the full T20 + T5 European list. Percentage is overlap with admit distribution, not admit probability. Reader-note column flags the binding constraint per school — what's actually keeping you off the page.
Reader-perspective recommendations across the four essay surfaces. Each angle is tied to a specific weakness above and quantified against revision-pass benchmarks.
The corrective sequence. Each week retires either a weakness or a structural gap above. Order matters — the spike thesis in week 1 is the spine the supplement rewrites in weeks 4–5 hang on.
Four-minute structured intake. Same Premium output you just read — against your actual numbers. $15, once. Non-refundable once generation begins — refunds only for failed reports, duplicate charges, or technical issues.