Evidence mapping service

Buyer

Research teams preparing scoping studies

Problem

Published evidence is difficult to compare systematically.

Format

Research evidence workspace with reviewed deliverables

Also fits

Education; Executives and Strategy

USP

A documented coding protocol and source passages behind each extracted field.

The product

Key screens: Study matrix, evidence map, reviewer disagreements. Organize work by research question. Show a source library, an evidence matrix and a draft findings panel with linked quotations. Keep contradictory findings and unanswered questions visible. Allow reviewers to inspect the original context before accepting an interpretation. In this product, the first view is study matrix, followed by evidence map and reviewer disagreements.

Core functionality

1. Define extraction fields.
2. Code study methods.
3. Map populations.
4. Capture reported outcomes.
5. Track reviewer disagreements.
6. Export structured evidence.

Customer workflow

Agree the decision and research questions, define permitted sources or participants, collect evidence, code findings, compare supporting and contradictory material, review interpretations, and deliver a cited brief with next questions. Start with study collection, research questions and coding protocol and finish with reviewed evidence matrix.

AI and human review

Assist with retrieval, transcription, structured extraction and thematic synthesis. Preserve source passages and methodological context. Human researchers validate inclusion, quotations and conclusions. Use real participants when customer research is required.

What the customer puts in

Study collection, research questions and coding protocol

What the customer gets

Reviewed evidence matrix

Accounts and administration

Source provenance, participant consent where applicable, research questions, coding definitions, reviewer disagreements, citations and versioned conclusions.

MVP scope

Begin with research teams preparing scoping studies and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: define extraction fields; code study methods. Provide operator assistance for the third module: map populations. Deliver reviewed evidence matrix through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.

After the MVP is validated

After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: capture reported outcomes; track reviewer disagreements; export structured evidence. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.

Build dependencies

A clear research protocol, source access, citation tracking and qualified interpretation. Interview work also needs relevant participants and consent management.

Integrations and data access

Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Permitted research libraries, interview recording imports, citation exports and document editors. Preserve original source metadata throughout the workflow. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.

Defensibility

Niche research protocols, credible researcher relationships and a rights-cleared evidence archive with consistent interpretation methods. For this idea, build around a documented coding protocol and source passages behind each extracted field. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.

Alternatives and positioning

Research consultants, internal analysts, literature databases and general search or summarization tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: a documented coding protocol and source passages behind each extracted field. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.

Revenue model and test pricing

Test USD 750-3,000 for one tightly bounded research question and evidence pack. Participant recruitment, specialist review and licensed data are separately scoped. Repeat tracking can become a retainer. Prices are hypotheses.

Main delivery costs

Researcher time, source access, participant recruitment, transcription, evidence coding, expert review and report revisions.

Marketing message to test

Evidence mapping service for research teams preparing scoping studies. A documented coding protocol and source passages behind each extracted field. Demonstrate the claim through a small evidence map with traceable extraction.

Acquisition channels

Research methods consultants

Lead magnet

A small evidence map with traceable extraction

The first 30 days of marketing

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: research teams preparing scoping studies. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
2. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a small evidence map with traceable extraction.
3. Week 3: present it through research methods consultants and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
4. Week 4: review reviewer agreement, source accuracy, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.

Paid pilot and validation

Answer one practical question using a bounded evidence set. Ask a domain expert to review citations and reasoning, identify contrary evidence and assess whether the deliverable supports the intended decision. For this idea, use study collection, research questions and coding protocol and evaluate reviewed evidence matrix. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for reviewer agreement, source accuracy. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.

Success metrics

Reviewer agreement, source accuracy

Retention and expansion

Maintain the research question and evidence archive, offer follow-up studies and refresh important sources. Build repeat work around the buyer’s decision cycle.

Operating controls and limitations

Preserve original data, methods, citations and research limitations. Use researcher review and document every substantive transformation. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.

Investment indication

What it would take to build, from a first MVP to the full product. A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. Running costs (model usage, hosting, reviewer hours) come on top.

Brand style (concept)