Solution Database / Science and Research
Research communication agency
Public explanations overstate results or lose essential context. Accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact.
01The offer
For research institutions explaining new findings publicly, turn original papers and researcher interviews into reviewed research communication package. Address the recurring problem: public explanations overstate results or lose essential context. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Research institutions explaining new findings publicly
- Takes in
- Original papers and researcher interviews
- Delivers
- Reviewed research communication package
- Message
- Research communication agency for research institutions explaining new findings publicly. Accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. Demonstrate the claim through a paper translated into an accurate public explainer.
- Lead magnet
- A paper translated into an accurate public explainer
02How it works
- Extract central findings
- Explain methods plainly
- Preserve limitations
- Develop visual stories
- Adapt audience formats
- Coordinate researcher review
Workflow
Collect a structured brief and source material, identify unanswered questions, approve an outline, generate a draft, verify claims, gather reviewer edits, approve a final version and export the agreed formats. Start with original papers and researcher interviews and finish with reviewed research communication package.
AI and people
Extract and organize information, propose structure, draft prose and adapt approved content to audiences. Attach evidence to factual claims. Keep names, dates, amounts and quoted wording linked to their source. Editors resolve ambiguity and approve publication.
Screens
Key screens: Research brief, audience drafts, scientist approval. Use a project list and editorial calendar beside a document editor. Keep original material and supporting passages in a collapsible side panel. Show outline, draft, review and approved stages. Provide tracked edits, comments, version comparisons and an export preview that reflects the final delivery format. In this product, the first view is research brief, followed by audience drafts and scientist approval.
Admin
Client workspaces, source permissions, editorial assignments, change history, reviewer comments, approval gates, revision allowances and export templates.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Writers, editors, agencies, internal document templates and general-purpose chat tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
Customer-approved terminology, reusable structures, source libraries and editorial feedback tied to a specific audience and recurring publishing workflow. For this solution, build around accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Science and Research 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: public explanations overstate results or lose essential context.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: University communication departments. Metrics that prove it works: Scientist corrections, audience comprehension.
Paid pilot
Complete one existing brief using the customer’s actual sources. Record reviewer edits, factual corrections and preparation time. Ask the same buyer to commission a second comparable deliverable. For this solution, use original papers and researcher interviews and evaluate reviewed research communication package. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for scientist corrections, audience comprehension. 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 research institutions explaining new findings publicly and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract central findings; explain methods plainly. Provide operator assistance for the third module: preserve limitations. Deliver reviewed research communication package 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: research institutions explaining new findings publicly. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a paper translated into an accurate public explainer. Week 3: present it through university communication departments and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review scientist corrections, audience comprehension, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: develop visual stories; adapt audience formats; coordinate researcher review. 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 approved source and voice library, schedule recurring editorial work, and expand into additional formats only after the core deliverable is repeatedly accepted.
Integrations
Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Document storage, word processor export, content management systems and approved publishing channels. Pilot with uploads and downloadable drafts before adding write integrations. 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: extract central findings; explain methods plainly. Manual review in the loop. | 4 days | $8,000 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 5 days | $9,000 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: develop visual stories; adapt audience formats; coordinate researcher review. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 9 days | $13,000 |
| Total | $30,000 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $70–$140 | $100–$200 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $700–$1,400 | $810–$1,610 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 400-1,500 for a tightly scoped initial content package. Convert repeated work to a monthly retainer with explicit deliverable and revision limits. Specialist review and substantial research are separately scoped. Prices are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Research and interview time, transcription, model usage, factual verification, subject-matter review, editing and revisions.
Safeguards
Preserve original data, methods, citations and research limitations. Use researcher review and document every substantive transformation. 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.