AI use case · Research

AI for research

A practical research workflow with a synthetic example, reusable prompt, expected output, review checklist and common failure to avoid.

By NMR Infotech · Updated 4 October 2026 · Editorial standards

Workflow overview

What can AI help with?

Teams spend time gathering and comparing source material.

Define a research question; collect primary sources; compare dated evidence; open citations and flag gaps.

Tools to explore: Perplexity, Gemini, Grok. Choose an organization-approved account and verify the features available to it before using the workflow.

Example input

Start with a clearly bounded input

Illustrative example · not client work

Illustrative question: what would an operations team need to know before selecting a knowledge-search tool? The brief asks for access controls, source support, operating costs and evaluation questions. No vendor has been selected.

Identify the person responsible for the task, the source material the tool may use and the format needed by the next person in the process. Keep missing facts visible instead of asking the model to fill them from guesswork.

Reusable starting point

Try this prompt with permitted material

Replace the bracketed fields with approved context. Use the example to practise the method before considering a connection to a live business system.

Create an evidence-led research brief for the question below. Prefer official product documentation and other relevant primary sources. For every factual claim, provide a source link and date where available. Separate verified statements from inference, and do not fabricate citations. If you cannot access current sources, give a research plan instead of pretending to have checked them.
Question: [insert]
Decision criteria: [insert]

Expected result

What should a useful output contain?

Evidence table

Record the claim, source, date, relevant plan or conditions and an uncertainty note.

Comparison

Explain differences only where comparable evidence is available.

Decision questions

Identify what must be confirmed through a trial, administrator or vendor discussion.

Before the output is used

What should the reviewer check?

Open the source; a plausible citation is not sufficient.
Check whether the cited page supports the exact claim.
Distinguish publication dates from the dates of the events described.
Look for contradictory evidence and account-specific conditions.

Learn from an error

A failure worth testing for

An answer cites an official homepage for a feature available only in a different paid plan. Keep the claim qualified and locate the relevant documentation.

Keep a record of the error and the correction. Re-test the revised instruction with a different input so a change that fixes one example does not hide another problem.

Evaluate the whole task

How can you assess whether this helps?

Evaluate evidence coverage, source relevance and the time needed to verify the brief. Do not score a response by the number of links alone.

Agree the quality criteria before comparing task time. If the reviewer cannot verify the answer or the workflow repeatedly exceeds its source boundary, narrow the scope or return to the established process.

Common questions

Can an AI research answer replace checking sources?

No. Treat the answer as a route to evidence. Open the relevant sources and confirm the facts, dates and conditions before making a business decision.

Is this a completed client project?

No. This is an illustrative learning workflow. It shows a way to frame and review a task, without claiming client deployment, measured savings or guaranteed results.

Related learning