PureSpark tests AI brainstorming workflows for the only thing that actually matters: whether an idea survives contact with a real project. Not how many you can generate. How many you'd actually use.
Ask most AI tools to brainstorm and they'll happily hand you fifty options in ten seconds. It feels productive. It rarely is. Fifty options generated from the same prompt, in the same pass, tend to cluster around the same handful of underlying ideas wearing different sentences.
Volume was never the hard part of brainstorming. Generating options is cheap, always has been. The hard part is provocation: getting genuinely different angles on a problem instead of twelve variations of the obvious first answer.
That's what we actually test for here. Not how many ideas a tool can produce, but how far it can push you past your own first instinct.
A brainstorm that never converges is just a longer list. The tools worth using understand that generating ideas and evaluating them require different modes, and they don't blur the two into one long undifferentiated dump.
Divergence without convergence is just noise with good formatting.
We look for workflows that respect the full arc: wide generation first, honest filtering second, and a clear way to tell which idea is actually worth the next hour of your time.
No daily feed. Once in a while, a note about a prompting habit, a tool, or a workflow that changed what a brainstorm actually produced.