Honestly: with caveats. The Library reflects where most climate communication science has been conducted: the United States, the United Kingdom, Western Europe. Many studies were run on WEIRD samples — Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic. That’s a limitation of the field, and we flag it.
The Library includes research from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Global South — and where findings diverge from the Northern baseline, the scoring reflects that. Expanding the Library southward is a core objective.
Climate misinformation has real consequences: undermining trust, delaying action, harming vulnerable communities. The six ethical principles are constraints the tool operates within and flags when a message risks crossing them. They reflect a commitment to AI that is transparent, accountable, and centered on human agency. Human voices and stories cannot be scripted from outside. Understories applies this by offering narrative frameworks as a starting point for human review: "Understories suggests. You decide."
Running AI has an energy cost. Every evaluation runs on servers that need electricity and cooling, and the footprint of one evaluation depends on the model, the provider and the energy mix of the data centre. As of September 2026, we have not measured it precisely and are in the process of assessing the best path for it.
Understories is built to limit that load. Each message is capped at 3,000 characters, and the beta allows one request per hour per connection and four per email address each month. These caps also stop the tool from becoming an unlimited text generator. An AI tool for climate communication is justified only if it produces better climate communication and has a positive net impact. We take that seriously.
Yes, it is free. Understories is registered in Paris as a French non-profit association (loi 1901), and it follows a design principle: the science of climate communication should not be available only to those who can afford a research team.
It started as a research project built between classes in March 2026, following an MIT capstone project. Until July 2026, messages were evaluated manually. After a pause, the automated beta launches on 29 September 2026: you submit your message, confirm by email, and the results arrive by email.
Understories is self-funded. The costs are low but real: the site now has an API, transactional email, and calls to an AI model. The beta usage limits (one request per hour per connection, four per email address each month) exist to keep it sustainable. Time, training, and self-teaching made it possible, and a community of practitioners provides guidance and feedback.
Go to Test your message, paste your draft (up to 3,000 characters), say who it is for and what you want it to achieve, and enter your email. All four fields are required, because a message can only be judged against what it is meant to do and who it is meant to reach. You then confirm your email, and your evaluation arrives by email: your original score, what's working, scores on eight criteria, the priority improvements, a five-minute win, a revised message, and a strategic note with evidence-linked citations, unresolved tensions and an ethical check.
The confirmation link checks that the message is yours before we process or store it. After you submit, we email you a link. Click it to receive your evaluation. [It also lets us apply the usage limits fairly, since they are counted per email address.] Can't find the email? Check your spam folder.
Start with the original score. It is a color band from red to green, and an A-E grade. It shows where your draft stands before any changes, as orientation, not judgment. "What's working" comes next, so you keep what is strong. Then come the eight criteria, each on a color band and an A-E grade , so you can see where the message is weakest. The priority improvements list the changes that matter most, and the five-minute win is one quick change you can make right away. The revised message shows those changes applied.
The strategic note explains what changed and why, with citations to studies in the Library. It lists unresolved tensions [points where good practice pulls in different directions, and human judgement is needed, so the choice is yours] and closes with an ethical check against the six principles. Understories suggests. You decide.
Treat it as a draft. The revised message is AI-generated and meant for human review before any use. Check the facts, the tone, and your local context, and change what doesn't fit. Publishing is your organisation's decision and responsibility, and Understories publishes nothing on your behalf.
Also, in the EU, AI-generated text published to inform the public on matters of public interest may need to be disclosed as AI-generated, unless a person has genuinely reviewed it and takes editorial responsibility for it. If you plan to publish text from your evaluation, check what applies to you. This is general information, not legal advice.
Not yet. Today, the tool applies one framework to everyone: the same eight criteria, research, and ethical principles. You can add context through the Audience and Goal fields. But climate communication doesn't happen in a universal context. An organisation has positions, a tone of voice, a specific audience and data it has spent years understanding, as well as strategic commitments it can't compromise on.
We're exploring how organisations could add their own context on top of the framework: their theory of change, audience segmentation, messaging guide or red lines. Understories would then evaluate a message against both the research baseline and your organisational reality. Handling such documents confidentially would come first. This is still in the research phase, and users and partners help shape what comes next. Another direction is connections to the tools you already use, such as content management systems, email platforms, and social schedulers. If your organisation wants to help build this, get in touch: caroline@understories.io.
Last update: 12 October 2026
Stay close to the work.
Occasional research, field notes, and practical tools for making climate communication count.