CN¥8,999.00
现在的 13 Pro 用了四年，电池健康度 76%，一天两充，拍照也开始发糊。本来想换数字系列就够，但经常拍孩子室内活动，长焦和新的散热设计对我有实际意义。8999 的 Pro 版比数字版贵一千，纠结的点就在这一千块值不值。旧机预计能抵 1500 左右。
iPhone 13 Pro（四年，电池 76%，一天两充）
旧机抵扣后实际支出约 7500，在年度换机预算内
7 votes · 10 identities required · No deadline
Once there is enough published advice, AI will summarize agreements, disagreements and next steps.
Check the trade-in quotes closer to a sale event; the price on this drops within weeks.
Indoor kid photography is a genuine reason to prefer the Pro sensor. Trade-in makes it reasonable.
A battery swap and another year with the 13 Pro costs nothing like 7500. The camera gap is small.
Four years with 76% battery health and a real use case for the telephoto. Sensible upgrade.
Photographing kids indoors is exactly where the new sensor and thermal design help daily.
电池 76% 加一天两充，换机理由充分，四年周期也不算频繁。
换电池只要五百多。除非长焦拍摄是硬需求，否则数字系列更划算。
This is a public purchase approval for the iPhone 17 Pro 256GB，从 13 Pro 换机, declared at CN¥8,999.00 in the “Electronics” category. The requester, 阿周, explains: “现在的 13 Pro 用了四年，电池健康度 76%，一天两充，拍照也开始发糊。本来想换数字系列就够，但经常拍孩子室内活动，长焦和新的散热设计对我有实际意义。8999 的 Pro 版比数字版贵一千，纠结的点就在这一千块值不值。旧机预计能抵 1500 左右。”
In addition, the requester already owns “iPhone 13 Pro（四年，电池 76%，一天两充）” and notes the budget as “旧机抵扣后实际支出约 7500，在年度换机预算内”.
So far the request has 7 valid votes (4 approve, 3 reject) against a quorum of 10; the current result is “Not enough approvals yet”.
In the approval form (on the right, or below the result on mobile), choose approve or reject, tick at least one reason tag — such as “genuine need”, “already covered”, “low use” or “repair first” — and optionally add advice of up to 300 characters. The AI reviews advice text automatically; once it passes, the advice is published and your vote is counted immediately.
The “AI approval brief” on this page is generated automatically by the site’s AI from published written advice. It has four parts: reasons to approve, reasons to reject, advice and next steps, and missing information. Citations such as [1][2] after each point link back to the original advice so you can verify every claim. The AI holds no vote and cannot override the majority; if the request is revised, an older brief is clearly marked as based on an older snapshot. When advice is scarce or the site AI is not configured, a placeholder explains that votes alone decide the outcome.
Voters appear under anonymous nicknames with a coarse network region (country and city, labelled as self-reported or network-derived) — never a verified identity. Each linked identity counts once per version, re-voting overwrites the previous choice, and withdrawing does not revive an older vote. These rules cannot prove “one person, one vote”, but they do stop one identity from stuffing the ballot.
After a majority approval, the requester may issue an approval receipt. The receipt is bound to an immutable snapshot of the vote counts, request version and identity epoch — it proves the result at one moment, not a standing permission. Requesters can also self-report what happened next (bought, skipped, still deciding, and whether it felt worth it); these records are shown honestly, and buying after a rejection is recorded as not following the site’s result. The verdict concerns this requester’s use case and budget — it is never a product quality certification.
The map aggregates this request’s valid votes by country: green dots lean approve, red dots lean reject, and dot size tracks vote counts. It answers “where do the opinions come from”, never “who decides the result” — no matter which regions take part, the outcome is always computed from all valid votes together. Regional color is context; the tally above it is the verdict.
The requester has a quiet set of tools on this page: adding clarifications (published after moderation), revising the request (which resets votes and starts a new version), withdrawing it entirely, issuing an approval receipt after a majority win, and self-reporting the outcome afterwards — bought, skipped, still deciding, and whether it felt worth it. All of it exists to keep one thing true: the request stays honest and current.
You are judging a stranger’s spending with partial information, and that is fine — the reason tags exist precisely so you can be useful without knowing everything. If the reason feels incomplete, “more context” plus one question in the advice box is a better contribution than a coin-flip verdict. If it feels complete, commit: specificity is what the requester came for.
No. The result changes as valid votes change and the page always shows the current snapshot. A receipt only freezes the result at the moment it was issued, for the requester’s own reference.
Written advice is published only after passing AI content review; rejected advice stays visible to its author and the requester only. The same applies to requester clarifications.
No. Voters appear as anonymous nicknames with an approximate network region (country and city) — no real names and no precise locations.
No. A revision starts a new version with fresh counting; all votes on the old version are void and jurors vote again.
It is evidence of one approval snapshot: the votes, the request version and the outcome at that time. No receipt can be issued after a majority rejection, and a receipt is not a standing authorization.
Never. The verdict only concerns this requester’s stated use, frequency and budget. It does not rate the product and is not shopping advice.
Yes. Jurors can hide their public locations anytime from the identity page, and everything the requester shows follows the same privacy rules.
Only public, visible, substantial requests that reached quorum are indexed; private and not-yet-qualifying pages are marked noindex.
Re-vote to overwrite, or withdraw. Your identity’s latest recorded action is what counts, and withdrawal never revives an older vote.