Life sciences.
What keeps coming back to you?

The new abstract overlaps an earlier cohort. A protocol amendment touches several working documents. A site invoice needs visit support. Find the document, data and coordination work around your science.

Browse every work area

Does the cited paper support the sentence you are about to publish?Keep each claim connected to its population, endpoint and source passage.Who knows every document touched by this protocol amendment?Prepare a version comparison and owner list before the team approves changes.Can you trace this site invoice back to the agreed study work?Put the payment schedule, visit support and unanswered questions beside each line.Will the next team understand what came out of this instrument?Preserve readings, units and field meaning in a reviewable data handoff.

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.

Scientific evidence

Keep the source, study population and limits attached to every piece of evidence.

A review update brings overlapping search exports and uncertain inclusion decisions.A deduplicated candidate register with source identifiers, screening questions and unresolved matches.

Prepare the next literature screening round

Bring these each run: Search exports, review question, team-approved eligibility criteria and prior screening decisions.
The person decides: The review team verifies duplicates and makes inclusion and exclusion decisions.
Keep the exceptions visible: Incomplete abstracts, uncertain duplicates and inaccessible papers remain flagged for reviewer attention.
Work it connects: Information specialists, scientific reviewers and evidence synthesis teams.

A draft presentation cites a paper that may support a narrower claim.A claim-to-passage table showing population, endpoint, timepoint and wording that needs review.

Trace a scientific statement back to its evidence

Bring these each run: Draft claims, cited papers, supplements and the scientific reviewer’s scope.
The person decides: The scientific author verifies support and approves the final wording.
Keep the exceptions visible: Missing full text, contradictory evidence and differences between association and causation are explicit.
Work it connects: Medical writing, research leadership and scientific communications.

Several public abstracts appear to report different views of the same study.An update brief linking trial and cohort identifiers, data cutoffs and unresolved overlap.

Separate new conference evidence from repeated cohorts

Bring these each run: Authorized public abstracts, posters, earlier reports and the team’s topic list and cutoff.
The person decides: The scientific lead checks overlap and decides which findings warrant deeper review.
Keep the exceptions visible: Embargoed material, title-only records and unclear cohort relationships stay outside firm conclusions.
Work it connects: Scientific affairs, research teams and partnership discussions.

Study coordination

Prepare the document and logistics work behind a study team’s next decision.

A new protocol version reaches several teams with different working documents.A version comparison listing changed passages, referenced forms and questions for each document owner.

Show what a protocol amendment changes on paper

Bring these each run: Prior and revised protocols, amendment summary, controlled forms and approved review matrix.
The person decides: The study lead confirms impact; designated scientific and regulatory reviewers approve implementation.
Keep the exceptions visible: Missing versions, conflicting summaries and clinical implications require specialist resolution.
Work it connects: Clinical operations, data management, site teams and document control.

A monitor needs to prepare for a site review using an incomplete file index.A checklist of available documents, version discrepancies, missing signatures and follow-up owners.

Find the gaps in a site document pack

Bring these each run: Site file index, sponsor checklist, approval records, delegation log and training records.
The person decides: The monitor and study manager verify the file and decide readiness and follow-up.
Keep the exceptions visible: An indexed file is not proof of approval; absent content or conflicting dates stays unverified.
Work it connects: Site coordinators, monitors and study management.

A shipment or site inventory report does not reconcile with the supply log.A shipment and accountability brief with mismatched kit counts, recorded conditions and missing evidence.

Assemble the record behind a supply exception

Bring these each run: Shipment manifest, receipt log, inventory extract, temperature record and supplied handling procedure.
The person decides: The supply manager investigates; authorized quality staff decide product disposition.
Keep the exceptions visible: Temperature concerns, missing receipts and blinded allocation details require controlled specialist handling.
Work it connects: Depots, couriers, site pharmacy and clinical supply teams.

Laboratory and study data

Prepare data for review while preserving original readings and unresolved discrepancies.

A scientist has results in a format the receiving data system cannot directly use.A draft normalized file, field map and validation report retaining links to original readings.

Prepare an instrument export for data handoff

Bring these each run: Instrument export, instrument identification, target schema and an approved example file.
The person decides: The scientist confirms field meaning; the data owner approves the file before import.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unknown units, unsupported formats and ambiguous raw-versus-derived fields remain unresolved.
Work it connects: Laboratory scientists, data engineering and LIMS administration.

The biorepository receives samples whose identifiers or handoff records do not line up.A discrepancy table linking sample IDs, aliquots, receipt records and missing custody information.

Reconcile a sample manifest with custody records

Bring these each run: Sample manifest, custody log, receipt export and the study’s approved sample-tracking conventions.
The person decides: The biorepository lead verifies identity and directs handling under the approved protocol.
Keep the exceptions visible: Identity uncertainty, recorded condition concerns and unclear permitted use require specialist decisions.
Work it connects: Study sites, sample logistics, biorepositories and assay teams.

A data review finds inconsistent dates or missing fields across study exports.A query draft list with field references, conflicting source values and suggested owners.

Draft precise questions about data discrepancies

Bring these each run: Authorized EDC extracts, external data files, approved edit-check specifications and query history.
The person decides: The data manager approves queries; site staff verify source records before any correction.
Keep the exceptions visible: Clinical interpretation, unresolved identity and possible safety issues go to designated reviewers.
Work it connects: Data management, sites, monitors and statistical programming.

Quality documentation

Give document owners and investigators a clear record to review.

A process owner has scattered comments on a controlled procedure.A proposed revision, comment disposition table and list of related documents to review.

Prepare an SOP revision for its reviewers

Bring these each run: Current SOP, change request, reviewer comments, controlled template and approval matrix.
The person decides: The process owner and quality reviewer approve wording, training needs and release.
Keep the exceptions visible: Conflicting comments, undocumented practice and changes to technical steps require subject-matter review.
Work it connects: Process owners, quality, document control and training coordinators.

A recurring nonconformance has records spread across logs and interview notes.An indexed chronology, related-event list and open questions separated from possible explanations.

Organize the evidence for a CAPA investigation

Bring these each run: Nonconformance records, complaint extracts, process logs, interview notes and prior CAPA files.
The person decides: The CAPA owner establishes cause, approves actions and decides whether effectiveness is demonstrated.
Keep the exceptions visible: Conflicting accounts and unsupported causal links remain questions; safety concerns follow the established escalation route.
Work it connects: Quality, laboratory or production teams and management review.

The master document list disagrees with the versions teams are using.A review register showing version mismatches, missing approval evidence and pending review owners.

Find document-control exceptions before review

Bring these each run: Document master list, supplied working copies, signature records and review schedule.
The person decides: Document control verifies status and authorizes distribution or withdrawal.
Keep the exceptions visible: A filename or recent edit does not establish approval or an effective date.
Work it connects: Document control, department owners and quality reviewers.

Research finance

Connect study activity and supplier work to the records finance needs.

A site invoice includes visits, procedures or pass-through costs that need supporting records.A line-level schedule of matched support, disputed items and questions for the study team.

Prepare a site invoice reconciliation

Bring these each run: Site invoice, executed payment schedule, authorized visit-status extract and prior payment register.
The person decides: Research finance confirms entitlement under approved terms and authorizes payment with the study owner.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unconfirmed visits, duplicate items and disputed milestones stay open; clinical billing classifications remain with specialists.
Work it connects: Site finance, clinical operations and accounts payable.

A revised schedule of assessments introduces work absent from the current budget.A change-cost worksheet linking added or removed activities to supplied rates and unresolved assumptions.

Expose the budget questions in a study change

Bring these each run: Approved protocol change, assessment schedules, current budget, institutional rate sheet and vendor quotes.
The person decides: Research finance and the study lead approve assumptions and negotiate any budget amendment.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unpriced work, uncertain visit volumes and payer responsibility questions require review before agreement.
Work it connects: Study management, site departments, contracting and finance.

Month-end arrives before all laboratory and research-service invoices.An accrual schedule with evidence of work performed, amounts already booked and draft journal entries.

Prepare support for unbilled research work

Bring these each run: Approved accrual policy, vendor statements, study service confirmations, contracts and ledger extract.
The person decides: The controller approves estimates and entries; study owners verify work performed.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unconfirmed milestones, partial service periods and disputed statements are flagged rather than silently estimated.
Work it connects: Study owners, vendor management and accounting.

People and research operations

Make training, study induction and administrative workload visible.

A procedure revision affects several roles, but training evidence is scattered.A role-by-procedure matrix showing supplied requirements, completed records and evidence gaps.

Connect revised procedures to training records

Bring these each run: Role descriptions, approved training requirements, procedure versions and completion records.
The person decides: The training owner confirms requirements; supervisors assess competence and authorize work.
Keep the exceptions visible: Missing records do not prove a person is untrained; competence and task authorization need human verification.
Work it connects: Quality, training coordinators, supervisors and research teams.

A coordinator joins a study with several vendors and established reporting routes.An induction pack with document reading order, shadowing tasks, access requests and escalation contacts.

Prepare a coordinator’s study induction

Bring these each run: Study organization chart, approved procedures, vendor contacts, role description and manager’s priorities.
The person decides: The study manager approves induction; authorized owners grant access and delegated duties.
Keep the exceptions visible: Outdated contacts, unclear delegation and unapproved documents remain open before independent work.
Work it connects: Study coordinators, investigators, vendors and system administrators.

Upcoming visits, query responses and document reviews compete for the same coordinators.A workload brief with tasks, supplied effort assumptions, availability and bottlenecks to discuss.

See where study administration will collide

Bring these each run: Study calendar, administrative task register, staff availability and manager-approved effort estimates.
The person decides: The operations manager sets priorities and staffing; clinical scheduling stays with the study team.
Keep the exceptions visible: Uncertain enrollment, unestimated tasks and protected review time are shown as assumptions.
Work it connects: Study operations, data teams, monitors and people managers.

Partnerships and funding

Prepare credible conversations and responses from evidence your team can stand behind.

Business development needs to reconnect scientific questions with the last discussion.A meeting brief separating approved capabilities, open technical questions and prior commitments.

Prepare for a scientific partner meeting

Bring these each run: Authorized meeting notes, partner brief, approved capability statements and disclosure boundaries.
The person decides: The partnership lead and scientific owner approve the agenda and what may be shared.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unpublished data, unsupported capabilities and proposed commitments need owner approval.
Work it connects: Business development, scientific leadership and alliance management.

The principal investigator has aims, preliminary results and contributor notes in different places.An evidence map linking proposed aims to supplied support, required sections and missing contributions.

Build the working pack behind a grant application

Bring these each run: Funding announcement, investigator’s aims, preliminary data, biosketches, support letters and budget inputs.
The person decides: The principal investigator owns scientific claims; research administration approves submission materials.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unsupported feasibility statements, inconsistent budgets and missing contributor approvals are explicit.
Work it connects: Investigators, collaborators, research administration and finance.

A sponsor’s service questionnaire asks for methods, capacity and evidence across several teams.A response matrix with source-backed draft answers, evidence gaps and named technical owners.

Map a sponsor request to demonstrated capabilities

Bring these each run: Sponsor request, approved capability library, delivery assumptions and authorized supporting records.
The person decides: The bid lead and scientific owners approve the response and any commitments.
Keep the exceptions visible: Unproven methods, unavailable capacity and requests for certification are routed to responsible specialists.
Work it connects: Research services sales, laboratory leads, quality and delivery teams.

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.

Capture how an experienced scientist checks a claim, how a coordinator assembles a site file, or how document control handles a revision. Fully Powered Studio turns that working knowledge into reusable AI workflows shaped around your records and review roles.

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.

We develop with invented examples and procedures your team chooses to share. Real study records, unpublished findings and participant information remain in your approved workspace. Data-system connections and imports require their own agreed scope.

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 information Work that crosses systems

AI prepares. Your people decide.

Scientific authors, investigators, data managers and quality owners verify prepared work. AI does not authorize experiments, release investigational material, certify compliance or decide clinical eligibility. Finance and commercial commitments also retain named human approvers.

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.

A team can start with a missing evidence-review routine, research finance handoff or sponsor-response process. We adapt public methods to your study model and quality procedures, then test the preparation work with your specialists. The examples are adaptations, not client outcomes.

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

Enable JavaScript to prepare an outline here, or bring these three questions to your fit call: what is the recurring job, how do you handle it now, and what would you like to happen without prompting?

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 document, data or coordination problem from the work around your science. We can define the prepared output, its source records and the review that makes it useful.

Book a 30-minute fit call.

Life sciences.What keeps coming back to you?