Scenario pack: research and business development

Use AI to structure research, not to supply the evidence or make the choice.

When a small team must scan public market information, compare suppliers, or summarize peer practices, AI can make a first brief easier to organize. A person still opens the sources, checks dates and claims, states what is unknown, and makes the recommendation.

Use this scenario when

• The team has a bounded question such as a public supplier comparison, market scan, competitor-practice overview, or public-program search.
• Current public or approved source material can be listed and a reviewer can open the material behind every important claim.
• The first test can use non-confidential sources and an internal brief, not a contract, customer statement, or final purchase decision.
• The aim is better analysis and less mechanical gathering, not measuring how many briefs an employee can produce.

Do not use this scenario yet when

• The work includes confidential pricing, contracts, customer data, employee information, unreleased strategy, security details, or restricted competitive intelligence.
• No person can validate sources, distinguish fact from assumption, and own the next decision.
• The result will be presented as legal, financial, investment, procurement, competition, or security advice without the approved expert process.
• The team expects AI to invent a source list, confirm a fact it cannot open, or select a supplier without accountable human judgment.

Run the smallest useful test

What a good result looks like

A good result is not a larger stack of AI-written summaries. It is a brief with an accessible source trail, visible uncertainty, fewer repeated formatting tasks, and a better-informed human discussion. Stop or narrow the test if generated citations cannot be verified, material facts are missing or outdated, restricted information reaches an unapproved tool, or the workflow creates a pressure to deliver more briefs instead of better judgment.