Solution Database / Science and Research
Research document search
Useful findings and protocols are hard to retrieve. Project-aware permissions and document provenance for internal research.
01The offer
For laboratory managers with growing internal archives, turn authorized research documents and project permissions into source-linked research search results. Address the recurring problem: useful findings and protocols are hard to retrieve. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Laboratory managers with growing internal archives
- Takes in
- Authorized research documents and project permissions
- Delivers
- Source-linked research search results
- Message
- Research document search for laboratory managers with growing internal archives. Project-aware permissions and document provenance for internal research. Demonstrate the claim through a cited search demonstration on approved lab documents.
- Lead magnet
- A cited search demonstration on approved lab documents
02How it works
- Index permitted documents
- Filter projects
- Retrieve exact passages
- Preserve version context
- Flag conflicting findings
- Export citations
Workflow
Add an approved collection, assign source owners and access rules, test representative questions, let users ask questions, retrieve supporting passages, answer or request clarification, and hand off unresolved cases with their context. Start with authorized research documents and project permissions and finish with source-linked research search results.
AI and people
Retrieve permitted passages and generate answers constrained to those sources. Use structured rules for transactional facts. Detect missing context and refuse to invent unsupported details. Store reviewer corrections for evaluation and controlled knowledge updates.
Screens
Key screens: Research search, cited passage, collection ownership. Give end users a simple search or conversation surface with short answers and expandable citations. Administrators get source status, unanswered questions and handoff queues. Show the source date beside relevant answers. Keep conversation context available to the staff member receiving an escalation. In this product, the first view is research search, followed by cited passage and collection ownership.
Admin
Source ownership, document permissions, freshness checks, conversation history, human handoff, feedback, test questions, usage limits and access logs.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Manual search, static FAQs, general chat tools and support or intranet suites. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: project-aware permissions and document provenance for internal research. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
A maintained domain knowledge collection, realistic evaluation questions, useful escalation paths and integrations in the customer’s daily work. For this solution, build around project-aware permissions and document provenance for internal research. 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: useful findings and protocols are hard to retrieve.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Research IT consultants. Metrics that prove it works: Relevant retrieval, permission correctness.
Paid pilot
Restrict the assistant to one collection and test answered, ambiguous and unanswerable questions. Run supervised use before wider rollout. Measure correctness, escalation quality and staff effort. For this solution, use authorized research documents and project permissions and evaluate source-linked research search results. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for relevant retrieval, permission correctness. 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 laboratory managers with growing internal archives and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: index permitted documents; filter projects. Provide operator assistance for the third module: retrieve exact passages. Deliver source-linked research search results 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: laboratory managers with growing internal archives. 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 search demonstration on approved lab documents. Week 3: present it through research IT consultants and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review relevant retrieval, permission correctness, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: preserve version context; flag conflicting findings; 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
Review unanswered questions and source freshness monthly. Expand to another source collection or team only after the existing assistant meets its agreed accuracy and handoff criteria.
Integrations
Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Approved knowledge repositories, websites, service desks and staff messaging systems. Validate access inheritance and use read-only ingestion for the initial deployment. 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: index permitted documents; filter projects. Manual review in the loop. | 3 days | $5,500 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 4 days | $5,500 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: preserve version context; flag conflicting findings; export citations. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 6 days | $7,500 |
| Total | $18,500 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $60–$120 | $90–$180 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $530–$1,050 | $640–$1,260 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 500-2,000 setup plus USD 150-600 monthly for one defined source collection and usage allowance. Price multi-location deployments and specialist support separately. Validate willingness to pay; these are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Document ingestion, retrieval and generation, source maintenance, support, evaluation and staff time handling unresolved cases.
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.