Clanker CloudAn AI research assistant can gather information, compare documents, and prepare a business brief. The useful output connects each conclusion to evidence you can inspect. A confident recommendation with an untraceable source is difficult to defend in a purchasing or planning meeting.
In Clanker Cloud Workspace, put the question, relevant files, and comparison criteria in a Project. Ask an Agent to research or analyze those sources, keep links with the findings, and separate established facts from unresolved questions.
Define a decision-sized question
“Research suppliers” is a request for an open-ended collection. “Compare these three suppliers for our October workshop” establishes a decision, a time frame, and a set of options.
For a fictional workshop, the criteria might be delivery coverage, quoted quantity, cancellation terms, dependencies, and confirmation deadlines. Give the assistant the criteria before asking it to rank the proposals. Otherwise it may optimize for whichever details are easiest to find.
The vendor comparison template provides a source table and review checklist. For market-facing research, the competitor brief template offers a different structure focused on dated evidence and comparable claims.
Keep public information separate from the actual offer
A vendor's website may describe a capability without including it in your quote. Ask the assistant to distinguish public claims, documented product terms, and the specific offer you received.
For the workshop example, “delivery available” on a website does not prove that your address and date are covered. A useful comparison says “coverage not confirmed in this quote” and identifies the question to ask.
Require the document version, source URL where relevant, and the date checked. For terms that change, such as availability or pricing, a fresh official source matters more than a long list of old summaries.
Build the evidence table before the recommendation
Ask for a table like this:
| Criterion | What the evidence establishes | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery | Quote A names the requested city | Exact delivery window is missing |
| Quantity | Quote B covers the requested amount | Substitution policy is unstated |
| Timing | Quote C includes a confirmation deadline | Internal approval owner is unknown |
These entries are fictional examples, not supplier findings. They show the form of a useful answer: a fact with a boundary and a next question.
Check a sample of the strongest claims directly against their sources. If a link leads only to a homepage or does not support the statement, ask the assistant to correct the evidence table before it writes the conclusion.
Make the recommendation conditional where necessary
A sound brief can recommend an option while explaining what would change that recommendation. For example, one supplier may fit the requirements if the delivery window is confirmed. Another may be preferable if the deadline moves.
Ask for the trade-offs in plain language and avoid numerical scores unless you supplied a scoring method. A fabricated precision of “92 out of 100” adds little when the decisive term is still missing.
Use the research verification guide to review contradictions and unsupported claims. Keep the final decision and its reasons alongside the evidence, especially if you will revisit the same suppliers later.
Once the method works, create a research Agent with the criteria framework and source rules. Keep the current offers and business facts in the Project. The reusable part is the method for finding a defensible answer.
Sources
Give your assistant one useful job
Bring proposals and decision criteria into a Project, build an evidence table, and inspect the recommendation before acting on it.