Use cases

Examples to explore, not customer results

These workflows are illustrative. They are not delivered customer outcomes or a list of services ready to switch on. Each needs scoped validation before deployment.

Prepare a research brief

Today, someone collects information before a meeting or business decision.

• Approved inputs: selected public sources and questions your team wants answered.
• Expected output: a short brief with source links and gaps called out.
• Reviewer: the person preparing for the meeting or making the decision.
• Limits: sources can be outdated or incomplete. Links and important claims need checking.
• Good fit: recurring research where a reviewer can verify the sources and judge coverage.

A pilot would test source accuracy and completeness across repeated runs, including questions the available sources cannot answer.

Draft a procedure from approved documents

Today, someone searches files and combines notes into instructions or a report.

• Approved inputs: selected documents your business has permission to use.
• Expected output: a draft procedure, checklist, or answer with references to those documents.
• Reviewer: the person responsible for the authoritative version.
• Limits: conflicting instructions and missing information require human decisions. A draft is not an approved policy.
• Good fit: a bounded set of current files with a clear owner.

A pilot would test permissions, source references, and what happens when files disagree or lack an answer.

Prepare marketing or sales drafts

Today, someone gathers background and writes a first draft for review.

• Approved inputs: your service descriptions, approved claims, tone guidance, and a specific brief.
• Expected output: a content draft, discovery questions, or a proposal outline.
• Reviewer: the person authorized to approve claims, pricing, recipients, and publication.
• Limits: AI can invent claims or commitments. This example does not include sending or publishing.
• Good fit: repeated drafting with usable source material and an established review process.

A pilot would check accuracy and action restrictions. It would not establish an automated lead-generation or outreach service.

Prepare a recurring administrative summary

Today, someone collects updates and turns them into a document or spreadsheet summary.

• Approved inputs: selected reports, exported spreadsheets, or non-sensitive sample records.
• Expected output: a draft summary with exceptions for a person to review.
• Reviewer: the person who owns the recurring task.
• Limits: calculations and records need validation. Connected calendar or workspace actions require separate permission checks and testing.
• Good fit: a stable format and a reviewer who can compare the summary against the inputs.

A pilot would test the whole path, including incorrect inputs and failed steps, before connecting live systems.

Keep consequential actions out of the first experiment

Invoicing, purchase orders, payments, and ERP changes are not included in these examples. Financial and purchasing workflows need especially clear approvals and separate validation.

The aim is to help people with repetitive preparation, while they retain decisions and responsibility for the result.

Have a similar task?

Tell us how you handle it today. Include its frequency and who checks the work, but leave out private records. See how we’d scope a pilot and what we’d agree about access.