Author research assistant
Research notes mix verified facts with unanswered questions. An organized research trail separating evidence, interpretation and uncertainty.
01The offer
For nonfiction authors researching specialist books, turn author research questions and permitted sources into source-linked author research dossier. Address the recurring problem: research notes mix verified facts with unanswered questions. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Nonfiction authors researching specialist books
- Takes in
- Author research questions and permitted sources
- Delivers
- Source-linked author research dossier
- Message
- Author research assistant for nonfiction authors researching specialist books. An organized research trail separating evidence, interpretation and uncertainty. Demonstrate the claim through a cited research pack for one chapter question.
- Lead magnet
- A cited research pack for one chapter question
02How it works
- Define research questions
- Locate relevant sources
- Record quotations accurately
- Compare conflicting accounts
- Label evidence gaps
- Export citations
Workflow
Agree the decision and research questions, define permitted sources or participants, collect evidence, code findings, compare supporting and contradictory material, review interpretations, and deliver a cited brief with next questions. Start with author research questions and permitted sources and finish with source-linked author research dossier.
AI and people
Assist with retrieval, transcription, structured extraction and thematic synthesis. Preserve source passages and methodological context. Human researchers validate inclusion, quotations and conclusions. Use real participants when customer research is required.
Screens
Key screens: Question map, source library, evidence notes. Organize work by research question. Show a source library, an evidence matrix and a draft findings panel with linked quotations. Keep contradictory findings and unanswered questions visible. Allow reviewers to inspect the original context before accepting an interpretation. In this product, the first view is question map, followed by source library and evidence notes.
Admin
Source provenance, participant consent where applicable, research questions, coding definitions, reviewer disagreements, citations and versioned conclusions.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Research consultants, internal analysts, literature databases and general search or summarization tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: an organized research trail separating evidence, interpretation and uncertainty. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
Niche research protocols, credible researcher relationships and a rights-cleared evidence archive with consistent interpretation methods. For this solution, build around an organized research trail separating evidence, interpretation and uncertainty. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Writers teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. The buyer already feels the problem: research notes mix verified facts with unanswered questions.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Book development editors. Metrics that prove it works: Source accuracy, author research time.
Paid pilot
Answer one practical question using a bounded evidence set. Ask a domain expert to review citations and reasoning, identify contrary evidence and assess whether the deliverable supports the intended decision. For this solution, use author research questions and permitted sources and evaluate source-linked author research dossier. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for source accuracy, author research time. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with nonfiction authors researching specialist books and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: define research questions; locate relevant sources. Provide operator assistance for the third module: record quotations accurately. Deliver source-linked author research dossier through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: nonfiction authors researching specialist books. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a cited research pack for one chapter question. Week 3: present it through book development editors and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review source accuracy, author research time, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: compare conflicting accounts; label evidence gaps; export citations. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
Retention
Maintain the research question and evidence archive, offer follow-up studies and refresh important sources. Build repeat work around the buyer’s decision cycle.
Integrations
Author-owned manuscripts, authorized interviews and permitted research sources. Permitted research libraries, interview recording imports, citation exports and document editors. Preserve original source metadata throughout the workflow. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: define research questions; locate relevant sources. Manual review in the loop. | 5 days | $8,500 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 6 days | $10,500 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: compare conflicting accounts; label evidence gaps; export citations. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 10 days | $14,000 |
| Total | $33,000 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $80–$160 | $110–$220 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $880–$1,750 | $990–$1,960 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 750-3,000 for one tightly bounded research question and evidence pack. Participant recruitment, specialist review and licensed data are separately scoped. Repeat tracking can become a retainer. Prices are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Researcher time, source access, participant recruitment, transcription, evidence coding, expert review and report revisions.
Safeguards
Preserve author voice, source attribution, quotation accuracy and usage permissions. Authors approve substantive changes and publication scope. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.