RESEARCH AUTOMATION
Research that arrives cross-checked, cited and current.
Henswick builds research workflows that gather from the sources you trust, check them against each other, cite every finding and refresh on a schedule, so your team reviews a brief instead of assembling one.
Illustrative example. Sources, trust order and rules are set with you. Henswick assembles and flags the evidence; whether a supplier is acceptable is decided by your people.
THE PROBLEM
Stale by Thursday, and nobody can say why.
The weekly report looks finished. But no one can say where each line came from, when it was last checked, or which source lost when two disagreed.
So the same research gets redone, quietly, whenever someone needs to trust it. And by the time the report circulates, the page it was copied from has often moved on.
THE STANDING BRIEF
Rules written down once, applied on every run.
Instead of relying on whoever ran it last, the workflow carries a standing brief: which sources count, which one wins, and what happens when they disagree.
Example rules, set with you
Delivered as changes only, to the named owner. Everything unchanged stays out of the way.
THREE RESEARCH BRIEFS
Same discipline, three different deliverables.
What comes out depends on the question being asked. Each example below is illustrative, and each ends somewhere your team already works.
A record where every field shows its source.
Firm details, hierarchy and contacts are gathered from public and subscription sources, checked against each other, and written back with the source and freshness beside each value. Anything unverified says so.
Sourced findings for a person to weigh, not a verdict.
Each finding carries its evidence, status and any conflict. Flags are raised where a claim rests on one source. Procurement or Compliance decides. If you want a score, it is a rule you define, and the reasons stay visible.
A digest of what changed, held until an owner has read it.
Sources are watched on a schedule and compared with the last run. Only the differences are written up, each with a citation. Changes that could affect a decision wait for the owner before the team sees them.
THE OUTCOME
A brief you can read, check and act on.
What lands with your team is a finished document: findings with citations, conflicts set apart, and a plain record of what was read and when.
Findings
Changed since last run
Sources
Every line traces to a source.
Citation markers point to what was read and when, so anyone can check a claim without redoing the research.
Disagreement stays visible.
Conflicts and single-source claims are set apart for a person to weigh, not smoothed over.
Only what changed needs attention.
Runs repeat on a schedule and report differences, so the brief stays current without anyone rebuilding it.
Show us the research you repeat every week.
Pulling data from a single page may only need a ready-made data extractor. Research that spans sources, cross-checks them and goes through review is where a custom workflow earns its place.