PRACTICAL AI AT WORK · ANTHROPIC · CLAUDE
Business research often fails at the point where a pile of information has to become a decision. An AI assistant can help organise the material, compare positions and draft a briefing. It can also make weak evidence look more convincing than it deserves. The answer is to design the research around traceable claims.
Anthropic’s Research feature can investigate questions using available sources and produce cited findings. Access and connected sources depend on the plan and settings. Whether you use that feature or work from supplied documents, the same discipline applies: establish the question, check the evidence and keep uncertainty visible.
Define the decision first
“Research customer service software” is too broad. A better brief might ask which options deserve a demonstration for a team of fifteen, given three essential integrations and a defined support process. State what is in scope, what would rule an option out and what information is missing.
Ask for the research plan before the full report. This gives you a chance to correct the direction while the work is still small. You might discover that the real question is about process ownership rather than software features.
Set a source standard
For product claims, begin with official documentation. For a supplier’s delivery record, look for independent evidence as well as its own marketing. For internal facts, identify the approved document and its date. A source can be authentic and still be outdated or irrelevant to the claim.
Keep a simple evidence table: claim, source, date, supporting passage and limitation. This makes the report easier to review than a long list of links at the end. Open the important sources yourself, particularly when a claim changes the recommendation.
A PRACTICAL WORKFLOW
Ask for alternatives and contradictions
A useful briefing explains why another reasonable person might reach a different conclusion. Ask Claude to identify conflicting sources, missing comparisons and assumptions that would change the result. A disagreement between sources is something to investigate, not a reason to average their claims into a confident answer.
A briefing prompt to adapt
Prepare a briefing for [audience] on [decision]. Use the supplied documents and, where available and approved, current primary sources. Separate verified facts, inferences and unanswered questions. For each material claim include a source and date. Compare the options against [criteria]. Explain what evidence would change the recommendation. If a source cannot be accessed, say so rather than implying it was checked.
Keep the final document short enough to use
Put the decision, options and key uncertainties on the first page. Keep supporting detail in an appendix or evidence table. A manager should be able to see the next action without reading every source, while a reviewer should still be able to trace the important claims.
ChatGPT and Gemini offer their own research and document workflows. Choose according to approved access, source needs and the quality of the reviewable output. Asking a second assistant can reveal another perspective, but agreement between two models is not independent confirmation.
Know where human expertise belongs
Use AI to prepare questions for a specialist and to organise evidence. Keep accountable decisions with the appropriate person. A document that affects legal, financial, employment or safety decisions needs the relevant expert review, not just a fluent summary. The most valuable research assistant makes the reviewer’s job easier.
Sources and further reading
Product information checked 4 November 2026. Features and availability depend on your plan and administrator settings. Examples and suggested workflows are illustrative.