Research and development workflows,
powered by AI.

The experiment with an assumption nobody checked. The promising paper that does not answer your question. The result that cannot be traced back to its analysis. Prepare the evidence and decisions behind the next piece of research. These are illustrative workflows.

Browse every work area
Will the experiment answer the question?Study design, measurement assumptions and practical alternatives considered before data collection.Which papers belong in the review?Search records, citations and relevance questions organized around the research brief.Does the result survive a closer look?Data checks, model limits and sensitivity questions prepared for the researcher.Can every claim be traced to evidence?Manuscript text, analysis outputs and missing support connected before submission.

Built for the AI you already use.

  • ChatGPT
  • Claude
  • Copilot
  • Gemini

Explore the work behind the next decision.

Start with a job you recognize. Open it to see what gets prepared, the questions that remain and where a person decides.

Illustrative workflows, adapted to your own procedures and standards. Each needs to be scoped to your operation. Scheduling and system connections are possible setups, scoped separately. People retain the decisions shown.

Research planning

Prepare designs and assumptions that the research lead can test before committing resources.

The team is planning a new experiment.A draft design with experimental units, controls, randomization and replication choices to review.

Prepare an experiment design for the research question

Bring these each run
Research question, equipment constraints, prior findings and available resources.
The person decides
The research lead approves the design and any required specialist or ethics review.
Keep the exceptions visible
Repeated measurements are not assumed to be independent; uncertain feasibility remains open.
Work it connects
Researchers, the study lead and technical specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

A researcher needs to explain how precise a reported result is.A draft uncertainty budget with units, input sources, correlations and unresolved assumptions.

Build the uncertainty budget behind a measurement

Bring these each run
Measurement model, calibration records, repeatability data and instrument specifications.
The person decides
The measurement specialist verifies the model, calculations and reporting convention.
Keep the exceptions visible
Unknown correlations and unsupported precision are flagged; no tolerance is inferred.
Work it connects
Researchers, the study lead and technical specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

A study depends on an uncertain dataset, method or resource.A scenario comparison with evidence, dependencies and candidate contingency actions.

Prepare alternatives if the research plan loses a key input

Bring these each run
Research plan, resource constraints, known failure points and supporting evidence.
The person decides
The research lead chooses which contingencies to prepare or test.
Keep the exceptions visible
Narrated scenarios are not numerical forecasts or evidence of an effect.
Work it connects
Researchers, the study lead and technical specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

Literature and sources

Keep the search method and the evidence behind a reading list visible.

The team has exported results for a defined research question.A deduplicated screening record with search provenance, proposed relevance notes and missing full texts.

Organize the literature search for screening

Bring these each run
Database exports, search strings, eligibility criteria and retrieval dates.
The person decides
The review lead confirms inclusion and exclusion decisions.
Keep the exceptions visible
Search rankings do not establish exhaustive coverage; abstracts do not replace full-text appraisal.
Work it connects
Researchers, information specialists and the review lead.

Possible setup. From an approved export. On request.

The author wants to clean the bibliography before writing or submission.A corrected citation draft with duplicates, mismatched identifiers and unresolved records listed.

Find references that do not match their source records

Bring these each run
Bibliography export, publication metadata and supplied authoritative source records.
The person decides
The author verifies ambiguous matches before adopting the bibliography.
Keep the exceptions visible
A valid identifier does not show that a paper supports the associated claim.
Work it connects
Researchers, information specialists and the review lead.

Possible setup. From an approved export. On request.

A separately scoped scheduled check reads an approved research-feed connection.A reading brief linking new recommendations to the project question and available full texts.

Prepare the papers worth a closer look

Bring these each run
Authorized project feed, research brief and agreed relevance criteria.
The person decides
The researcher decides what to retrieve and appraise.
Keep the exceptions visible
Recommendations remain suggestions; unavailable full texts and limited feed coverage are explicit.
Work it connects
Researchers, information specialists and the review lead.

Possible setup. Through a scoped connection. On a schedule, with review.

Evidence appraisal

Separate what a study reports from what its design can support.

A researcher asks whether a paper can support a specific claim.An appraisal of design, reported results, uncertainty and possible alternative explanations.

Inspect the evidence behind a research claim

Bring these each run
Full paper, supplements, available protocol and the precise claim under consideration.
The person decides
The subject specialist decides how much weight to give the evidence.
Keep the exceptions visible
Missing reporting is not proof that a procedure was omitted; association is not assumed causal.
Work it connects
The research lead, reviewers and relevant subject specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

An author requests comments on a scholarly work in progress.Source-linked feedback on clarity, evidence gaps and consistency against an agreed rubric.

Prepare developmental feedback on a research draft

Bring these each run
Authorized draft, supporting material and the author's review questions.
The person decides
The author chooses revisions and asks specialists to resolve technical disputes.
Keep the exceptions visible
The output assesses the work, not the author; it does not rank people or recommend funding.
Work it connects
The research lead, reviewers and relevant subject specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

A reviewer has confirmed permission to use the material in the chosen workspace.A structured draft of strengths, limitations and questions with references to the submission.

Organize an authorized reviewer's assessment

Bring these each run
Authorized full submission, venue review policy, agreed scope and reviewer observations.
The person decides
The human reviewer verifies every criticism and owns the submitted review.
Keep the exceptions visible
Confidentiality, conflicts and venue restrictions must be resolved before processing; no publication verdict is delegated.
Work it connects
The research lead, reviewers and relevant subject specialists.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

Analysis and simulation

Make the input, assumptions and limits of a technical analysis inspectable.

The research team needs a bounded analysis of a large local dataset.Selected summaries with row counts, units, missingness and a reproducible transformation record.

Summarize a research table that exceeds working memory

Bring these each run
Authorized data files, schema, row identifiers and the defined analysis question.
The person decides
The analyst verifies results against a checked subset before the research lead interprets them.
Keep the exceptions visible
Joins, filters and resource limits are explicit; rare observations are not silently dropped.
Work it connects
Researchers, computational specialists and the study lead.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

A researcher wants a visual map of high-dimensional measurements.An exploratory map with preprocessing notes and sensitivity checks across settings.

Explore patterns in a many-variable dataset

Bring these each run
Measurement table, units, row identities, missing-value rules and research question.
The person decides
The researcher tests interpretations against the original measurements.
Keep the exceptions visible
Visual clusters do not establish categories, causation or calibrated distances.
Work it connects
Researchers, computational specialists and the study lead.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

A computational researcher is proposing a fluid dynamics run.A draft simulation plan with equations, acceptance checks, resource limits and a small pilot.

Bound a fluid simulation before reserving compute

Bring these each run
Model assumptions, geometry, boundaries, target observables and compute constraints.
The person decides
The researcher approves the model and pilot; the compute owner authorizes resource use.
Keep the exceptions visible
A completed run or smooth plot does not demonstrate convergence or physical validity.
Work it connects
Researchers, computational specialists and the study lead.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

Writing and submission preparation

Build research prose around verified findings and explicit unresolved questions.

The study lead releases an approved evidence set for writing.A manuscript draft with methods, results, limitations and source links for author review.

Draft the report from verified research records

Bring these each run
Verified analysis outputs, protocol, methods record and approved bibliography.
The person decides
Human authors verify the science and approve every assertion.
Keep the exceptions visible
Missing results, methods, approvals or author details are never invented.
Work it connects
Authors, research leads and publication coordinators.

Possible setup. From approved files. When an agreed event happens.

A draft is ready for its evidence check.A claim-to-evidence table linking text to code, configurations, tests and recorded outputs.

Trace manuscript claims back to the analysis

Bring these each run
Manuscript, analysis repository snapshot, configurations and output artifacts.
The person decides
The research lead resolves unsupported claims before approving the draft.
Keep the exceptions visible
A code path alone does not prove it ran; runtime-dependent claims need recorded results.
Work it connects
Authors, research leads and publication coordinators.

Possible setup. From approved files. When an agreed event happens.

The author has selected a journal or conference.A requirements checklist and proposed document changes for the chosen submission stage.

Prepare the manuscript against verified venue instructions

Bring these each run
Current official instructions supplied by the author, manuscript and article or track details.
The person decides
The author verifies requirements and authorizes submission after resolving gaps.
Keep the exceptions visible
Old templates do not establish current rules; missing approvals and disclosures remain open.
Work it connects
Authors, research leads and publication coordinators.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

Figures and research presentations

Communicate the research without losing uncertainty or the trail back to the data.

A researcher needs to explain a result visually.A draft figure, accessible description and transformation record tied to the underlying data.

Prepare a figure with its evidence trail

Bring these each run
Verified data, analysis choices, uncertainty estimates and destination requirements.
The person decides
The researcher confirms the encoding and scientific interpretation before release.
Keep the exceptions visible
Missing observations, exclusions and adjusted axes stay explicit; no data is altered to improve appearance.
Work it connects
Researchers, presenters and publication owners.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

The researcher has an accepted speaking slot or internal review.A draft talk outline and slides connecting the question, method, findings and limitations.

Prepare a research talk for a specific audience

Bring these each run
Approved findings, figures, citations, audience and speaking time.
The person decides
The presenter validates the claims and decides what unpublished work may be shared.
Keep the exceptions visible
Time estimates need rehearsal; unsupported conclusions remain outside the presentation.
Work it connects
Researchers, presenters and publication owners.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

The authors have approved the poster content and event requirements.A draft poster with figures, captions, attribution and layout issues to resolve.

Assemble an editable research poster

Bring these each run
Approved text, verified figures, author details, permissions and confirmed event dimensions.
The person decides
The authors approve content and the production owner checks the final print file.
Keep the exceptions visible
Unresolved claims, asset permissions or printer requirements block final release.
Work it connects
Researchers, presenters and publication owners.

Possible setup. From approved files. On request.

From “I prompt it”
to “it is ready to review.”

Start with a simple version of one job. Make the preparation more automatic as the inputs, rules and review process become reliable.

On request

Bring the files or exports. Run the preparation when you need it, and review what comes back.

First, agree the useful output.

On a schedule

Prepare the review at an agreed interval, with a clear owner for exceptions and missing inputs.

Next, establish access and a review queue.

When something happens

An agreed event starts the preparation. Duplicate records, failures and retries have somewhere to go.

Then, test the trigger and recovery.

The person still approves the payment, releases the work or sends the message. Scheduling and integrations are scoped to the job.

Already have a prompt
that gets you most of the way?

That is a useful starting point. Bring the prompt, an example result and the part you still have to chase or fix.

We can start by examining what you have: its inputs, the exceptions it misses and what would make it reliable enough to hand off.

Describe what you have built
How we build and review the work

Your way of doing the work, ready for the team.

Your researchers know which controls matter, how to challenge a result and what makes an evidence trail usable. Capture that judgment around research preparation and communication.

Fully Powered Studio captures the steps, exceptions and standards in your procedures and your people's experience. They become reusable instructions, templates and checks for the next run.

Capture what works with Fully Powered Studio

Start with the records you already have.

Start with public methods, chosen templates and invented research data. Your researchers use authorized real material in their own workspace. Research-service connections and scheduled checks are separately scoped.

Begin with approved files and exports in your own AI workspace. Live connections and scheduled preparation can be scoped as the work becomes reliable.

Security and your informationWork that crosses systems

AI prepares. Your people decide.

Research leads and subject specialists approve study designs, analyses and scientific conclusions. Authors and reviewers retain responsibility for publication decisions and permissions. Clinical decisions belong with qualified clinicians on the relevant industry pages.

Test ordinary work alongside missing records, conflicting information and unusual cases. A useful output shows what it checked and what it could not assess.

Evals, validation & verification

Build the capability you need next.

An R&D team may need its first reproducible literature review, measurement record or claim-to-evidence routine. We adapt general methods to the question, data and specialist review involved.

We select reusable methods and templates, tailor them to your organization, guide first use and refine the package with your team.

Build what's missing

What is your
version of this?

One job is enough to start.

Describe what comes in, what you do now and what you wish would be ready without another prompt.

Prepare a discussion outline. Your answers stay in this browser tab. You can edit and copy the outline to bring to a conversation. Nothing is sent or saved.

Go straight to a fit call

One recurring job.
Or a connected department.

Start with one workflowFind a focused starting point in work you already do.Map your department against thisExplore connected workflows, ownership and implementation.

Existing sprints, scope and pricing are on Get started. Establishing a function? Explore building a new capability.

Which job would you like ready to review?

Bring a recurring research preparation task and the evidence your lead needs before deciding what to do next.

Book a 30-minute fit call.