The buying question
A DeFi team comparing economic-model risk work with implementation security needs to understand which service it is requesting. Incentives, liquidity and systemic behavior are different questions from vulnerabilities in code, even when the reviews complement each other.
The dated evidence
The public economic-audit page captured on 24 October 2026 named the intended service correctly. The reviewed Service object's offer URL referred to smart-contract auditing. The evidence establishes a source-data mismatch, not an observed misdirected AI answer or user journey.
The proposed change
Locate the Economic Audit Service object and point only its offer URL to the confirmed canonical economic-audit page. Preserve other service objects and unrelated metadata.
- Verify name and serviceType before editing the object.
- Confirm the current canonical service URL and quote destination.
- Keep the visible explanation clear about model risk versus code implementation.
- Validate the resulting JSON and destination after the change.
How to accept the change
The service identity, offer destination and visible procurement explanation should describe the same scope. Any later claim about inquiry quality, rankings or AI answers requires separate recorded measurements.
Where the work stands
An evidence summary and minimal offer-URL correction were prepared. No change was made to Three Sigma's site. No search engine or AI answer was observed routing a buyer incorrectly, and no performance improvement has been measured.
Evidence & boundaries
Public website and source-data observation dated 24 October 2026. The attached image labels the proposed change as not live. Private correspondence and contact information are excluded.
Independent public analysis. Three Sigma is not presented as a client, partner or endorser. No implementation, AI visibility improvement or sales result is claimed.
Public summary published . Findings refer to the dated observations above.