An AI assistant for specialist consultancies

Your team has the expertise. You don’t have to write it all.

AI turns your team’s project notes into a campaign: content to publish and outreach messages, reviewed by the people behind the work.

Book a call

Early access · Test it on one of your projects

A client project becomes content and an outreach plan. An explanatory film using a fictional example.

Explore the example

Read the text version

Text version of the video

42 seconds. Silent illustrative product story. All account activity and content in this film are examples, not captured software or customer results.

00:00–00:04 — THE SOURCE
Example campaign. AI/data consultancy.
Start with your team's work.
One project debrief. A campaign to build from it.
Technical lead's source: “The model read the order correctly. It matched the wrong catalog item.”
Project note: “Added review for uncertain matches.”
00:04–00:09 — THE ANGLE
A useful angle. True to the source.
Proposed angle: “Reading and matching need separate checks.”
“Human review when the match is uncertain.”
The technical lead reviews and approves this angle.
00:09–00:12.5 — LINKEDIN DRAFT
Same expertise. Different formats.
“A correct read can still be a wrong match.”
“Check extraction and matching separately.”
00:12.5–00:16 — X THREAD OPENER
“Correct reading. Wrong reference.”
“An uncertain match still needs human review.”
00:16–00:19.5 — INSTAGRAM CAROUSEL COVER
Order automation.
“Read correctly. Matched incorrectly.”
“Two steps. Two different checks.”
00:19.5–00:23 — OUTREACH EMAIL DRAFT
To: Operations lead.
Subject: Uncertain catalog matches.
“How will your team review uncertain catalog matches?”
A relevant question. No assumed need.
The message remains a draft for review.
00:23–00:30 — THE CONVERSATION
A reply changes the next step.
Example account: a second warehouse has been announced.
Illustrative reply from the operations lead: “Could you explain how you handle uncertain catalog matches?”
The account's two pending steps pause: a manual LinkedIn follow-up to the operations lead and an email introduction to the technical lead.
The founder takes over the conversation. A person decides what resumes.
00:30–00:38 — THE NEXT DRAFT
A useful question. A new draft.
Illustrative comment: “How do you hand a flagged order over when the next shift starts?”
Next angle to test: “Who owns the handover?”
Draft: “Name the owner. Plan the handover.”
The delivery lead reviews the proposed angle. The scene ends with a reviewed draft that is not published.
A comment suggests a test. It does not prove buying intent.
00:38–00:42 — YOUR TEAM
Your team has the expertise. You don't have to write it all.
From project knowledge to a reviewed campaign.
Content. Outreach. Learning. With your team in control.

From project to content

One project. More than one way to explain it.

The message and format change with the people you want to reach. Choose the channels that serve your goal.

Choose a format

LinkedInXInstagramEmail

From the same project experience

Explore the content

LinkedIn post

Reading an order correctly isn’t the same as processing it reliably.

A correct extraction can still point to the wrong item. Check reading and matching separately.

Fictional example

Explore the full example

The example in detail

Fictional example · A consultancy uses what it learned from a project involving customer orders to prepare a campaign.

ContributorFormat

Reading an order correctly isn’t the same as processing it reliably.

Extraction is the first step. Matching the right item comes next.

When the match is uncertain, someone needs to review it. Decide who owns that review before launch.

.explorer-interactive { display: none !important; }

Read the complete example

Sources, full drafts, account scenarios, and results are available in this reading view. Open the part you want to inspect.

Fictional consultancy, sources, account, and activity. This example publishes nothing and sends no messages.

Sources and channel formats

Founder

The customer wanted to keep the ERP. Their concern was who would check the orders that needed review. We discussed that responsibility before agreeing on the automation scope. The buying decision included a decision about how the team would work.

Fictional remarks, created for this example.

LinkedIn post

Before automating orders, decide who owns the exceptions.

An automation project also changes how people work.

When an order needs review, who takes it? What information do they need? What happens while it waits?

Make those decisions part of the buying conversation.

X thread

Draft title for review

The question before the software

Post 1 of 3
A customer wanted to keep their ERP. The buying question that mattered was concrete: who would check the orders that still needed a person?
Post 2 of 3
We discussed review ownership before agreeing the automation scope. A technology decision also needed a decision about how the team would work.
Post 3 of 3
Buying order automation? Ask who takes the order when it needs review, what they need to act, and what happens while it waits. Bring that person into the conversation.

Instagram carousel

Fictional example

Order automation

Before you automate, assign the review.

Who checks? With what information? What happens while it waits?

Use a typographic cover with the title as the dominant element, the short body below, and the source-margin rule. Keep the illustration label outside the exported specimen.

01 / Context

Keep the existing ERP.

The customer’s question was who would check orders that needed review.

Set the existing ERP and the ownership question on separate lines. Use an open rule to connect them.

02 / Responsibility

Name the person who checks.

Discuss that responsibility before agreeing the automation scope.

Set responsibility first in the reading order. Follow it with the automation scope in smaller type.

03 / Decision

Ask how the review works.

Who checks? With what information? What happens while the order waits?

Use three aligned questions with ample space. Do not draw checked boxes that imply answers already exist.

04 / Next step

Bring the reviewer into the discussion.

Agree how the team will work before settling the scope.

Close with the instruction in large type and the scope sentence below. Repeat the source-margin rule.

Caption

The useful buying question in this example concerned team responsibility. Discuss how review will work while you define what to automate.

Email outreach

Sending identity: Not assigned in this example.

Subject

A question about the new warehouse

I saw the announcement about your second warehouse. How will your team handle orders that need a person to check them?

We work on order intake around existing ERPs. Happy to compare approaches if this is part of the rollout.

Technical lead

The model read the order correctly. It matched the wrong catalog item. We added review for uncertain matches. Reading the document and choosing the correct reference were separate steps in this project.

Fictional remarks, created for this example.

LinkedIn post

Reading an order correctly isn’t the same as processing it reliably.

Extraction is the first step. Matching the right item comes next.

When the match is uncertain, someone needs to review it. Decide who owns that review before launch.

X thread

Draft title for review

Correct reading. Wrong reference.

Post 1 of 3
The model read the order correctly. It chose the wrong catalog item. In that project, reading the document and choosing a reference were separate steps.
Post 2 of 3
We added human review when the product match was uncertain. An accurate transcription did not remove the need to check what the system selected.
Post 3 of 3
When testing order intake, ask two questions: did we read the order correctly, and did we select the right catalog item? Evaluate the two steps separately.

Instagram carousel

Fictional example

Order automation

Read correctly. Matched incorrectly.

Two steps. Two different checks.

Use a typographic cover with the title as the dominant element, the short body below, and the source-margin rule. Keep the illustration label outside the exported specimen.

01 / Read

Read the order.

Extract the reference, quantity, and description.

Use the heading above three typographic fields: reference, quantity, description. Reuse body words rather than inventing an order number or customer record.

02 / Match

Choose the catalog item.

The words can be right while the item is wrong.

Give reading and matching equal typographic weight, joined by a fine rule. Highlight the wrong item in vermilion; do not add accuracy figures.

03 / Review

Route uncertain matches.

Decide who checks them and what happens while they wait.

Frame the uncertainty with a source-margin bracket. Show a review instruction, without a fake application screenshot or success badge.

04 / Test

Check both steps.

Was the order read correctly? Was the right item selected?

Place the two questions on distinct lines beneath the heading. Keep them as questions, without ticks or invented test results.

Caption

A readable order is only one part of reliable processing. This example separates document extraction from catalog matching and keeps uncertain matches under review.

Email outreach

Sending identity: Not assigned in this example.

Subject

Product matching across locations

I saw the announcement about your second warehouse. Are product references matched against one shared catalog, or handled separately at each location?

We work on order intake and catalog matching around existing ERPs. Happy to share how we approach uncertain matches if that is relevant.

Delivery lead

An order flagged for review only moved when somebody knew they owned it. We defined who checks it and what happens while it waits. We also agreed how ownership passes to the next shift. The review step needed a practical handover.

Fictional remarks, created for this example.

LinkedIn post

An exception queue needs an owner.

Adding a review step is only part of the work.

The team also needs to know who checks the order, what they should do, and how to hand it over when a shift ends.

Make the handover visible before you add more automation.

X thread

Draft title for review

A review flag needs a next owner

Post 1 of 3
An order could be flagged for review and still go nowhere. In this project, it moved only when someone knew they were responsible.
Post 2 of 3
We defined who checks the order, what happens while it waits, and how ownership passes to the next shift. The handover was part of the review step.
Post 3 of 3
Before adding another review step, walk one order through it: who picks it up, what do they do, and who takes over when the shift ends?

Instagram carousel

Fictional example

Order automation

An order is waiting. Who owns it?

Make the handover part of the workflow.

Use a typographic cover with the title as the dominant element, the short body below, and the source-margin rule. Keep the illustration label outside the exported specimen.

01 / Ownership

Name the next owner.

A flagged order only moved when somebody knew they owned it.

Use the source sentence as a large editorial quotation. Do not add invented queue sizes or waiting times.

02 / Waiting

Define what happens while it waits.

Make the reviewer and the next action explicit.

Set reviewer and next action as two short typographic rows separated by a rule.

03 / Handover

The shift ends. The order stays.

Agree how responsibility passes to the next team.

Use two open text areas for the current and next team. Connect them with a thin rule, without adding a new source claim.

04 / Walkthrough

Follow one order through review.

Can the team name the owner at each handover?

Close with the walkthrough instruction and its question. Repeat the contributor’s role without a fabricated portrait or customer logo.

Caption

The review step needed a practical handover. This example shows why assigning responsibility and agreeing the next shift’s role belong in the workflow.

Email outreach

Sending identity: Not assigned in this example.

Subject

Who handles order exceptions?

With the second warehouse opening, will order exceptions be handled by a shared team or locally at each site?

We help teams make that review and handover explicit when connecting incoming orders to an ERP. Happy to compare workflows if you are working through this.

Account plan and responses

Fictional account, people and activity. Changing this example sends no messages.

Awaiting response

A distributor has announced a second warehouse. Its order-handling needs have not been confirmed.

Conversation owner: Consultancy founder

Example day 1
Sent · Example
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Ask how uncertain orders will be reviewed during the warehouse rollout.
Example day 4
Scheduled · Example
Channel: LinkedIn · Manual task
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Review whether a relevant, appropriate LinkedIn follow-up would add anything useful.
Example day 7
Owner review required
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Technical lead
Recipient: Technical / IT lead
Review whether to involve a technical contact, using the catalog-matching example.

The timing illustrates a plan; it is not a recommended universal cadence.

This is an illustrative plan. The LinkedIn step is a task for a person; no platform connection or automated message is demonstrated.

A contact replies

A distributor has announced a second warehouse. Its order-handling needs have not been confirmed.

Conversation owner: Consultancy founder

Example day 1
Reply received · Example
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Ask how uncertain orders will be reviewed during the warehouse rollout.
Example day 4
Paused for the conversation
Channel: LinkedIn · Manual task
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Review whether a relevant, appropriate LinkedIn follow-up would add anything useful.
Example day 7
Paused for the conversation
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Technical lead
Recipient: Technical / IT lead
Review whether to involve a technical contact, using the catalog-matching example.

The timing illustrates a plan; it is not a recommended universal cadence.

This is an illustrative plan. The LinkedIn step is a task for a person; no platform connection or automated message is demonstrated.

The company asks to stop

A distributor has announced a second warehouse. Its order-handling needs have not been confirmed.

Conversation owner: Consultancy founder

Example day 1
Company-wide stop request · Example
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Ask how uncertain orders will be reviewed during the warehouse rollout.
Example day 4
Stopped
Channel: LinkedIn · Manual task
Sending identity: Founder
Recipient: Operations lead
Review whether a relevant, appropriate LinkedIn follow-up would add anything useful.
Example day 7
Stopped
Channel: Email
Sending identity: Technical lead
Recipient: Technical / IT lead
Review whether to involve a technical contact, using the catalog-matching example.

The timing illustrates a plan; it is not a recommended universal cadence.

This is an illustrative plan. The LinkedIn step is a task for a person; no platform connection or automated message is demonstrated.

Observations and the next draft

All figures, comments and activity below are fictional examples, not customer results.

Back to the observations

LinkedIn · Technical contributor · First 72 hours · Illustrative snapshot

Impressions: 1,200
Reactions: 24
Comments: 4

Illustrative aggregate counts. Comments are not unique people; reactions do not identify buyers or establish buying intent.

One example audience question

How do you hand a flagged order over when the next shift starts?

Observed response

The displayed question asks how responsibility passes to the next shift. It gives the team a specific topic to examine.

Hypothesis to test

A practical handover example may answer this reader’s question. The team can review a draft before deciding whether to test that angle.

Next draft for review

Use the delivery contributor’s source to prepare a handover example. Review it before any publication, then decide what response to observe.

These observations suggest a next test. They do not establish buying intent or prove a sales effect.

Inspect the next draft

LinkedIn · Technical contributor · First 72 hours · Illustrative snapshot

Next draft for review · For editorial review

Next contributor · Delivery lead

Who owns the handover?

An order waiting for review needs a named owner.

Make three things clear: who checks it, what happens while it waits, and how responsibility passes to the next shift.

The handover is part of the workflow you are designing.

One example audience question

How do you hand a flagged order over when the next shift starts?

Observed response

The displayed question asks how responsibility passes to the next shift. It gives the team a specific topic to examine.

Hypothesis to test

A practical handover example may answer this reader’s question. The team can review a draft before deciding whether to test that angle.

These observations suggest a next test. They do not establish buying intent or prove a sales effect.

Example: data unavailable

LinkedIn · Technical contributor · First 72 hours · Illustrative snapshot

Impressions: Not available
Reactions: Not available
Comments: Not available

Illustrative aggregate counts. Comments are not unique people; reactions do not identify buyers or establish buying intent.

Results have not been collected for this example.

Add observed results and responses before making a recommendation from them.

After the content

Coordinate your outreach.

Decide who writes to each person at a target company, then use the replies to work out what happens next.

Fictional example

A reply arrives. The follow-ups wait.

The operations lead repliesEmail

Could you explain how you handle uncertain catalog matches?

The other planned messages

LinkedIn follow-up · OperationsPaused for owner review
First email · TechnicalPaused for owner review

View the outreach plan

Fictional example

A reader’s question becomes a topic to address.

A reader asks

How do you hand a flagged order over when the next shift starts?

Proposed next piece

Who owns the handover?

For the team to review

Next contributor · Delivery lead

View the proposed draft

A first project

Let’s start with a project your team has done.

Start with a real project and the service you want to promote. We’ll define a first campaign to test the tool with your team.

Your starting point
Material from a project, one expert, and one service offer.
Content to prepare
Drafts adapted to the people you want to reach and the chosen channels.
What happens next
The contacts, the messages to approve, and the responses to examine.

Book a call

Scope, timing, and price are agreed before work begins.

Before we start.

How do we keep each expert’s way of speaking?

Their ideas, vocabulary, and examples are the starting point. AI proposes drafts. Each contributor reviews, edits, and approves them before they are used. Style remains a human decision.

Do we have to use all four channels?

No. Choose the channels that suit your audience and offer. The examples show possibilities, not an obligation to publish everywhere.

What exactly does the video show?

An illustrated demonstration of the intended workflow, using a fictional case. It is not a recording of the software. We clarify which features can be used and which steps remain manual before the first project.

What does the first project cost?

We agree the scope, timing, responsibilities, and price before work begins. Booking a call does not commit you to starting the project.

Which project deserves a better explanation?

Let’s see what your team could make of it.

Book a call

Your team has the expertise. You don’t have to write it all.

Text version of the video

00:00–00:04 — THE SOURCE

00:04–00:09 — THE ANGLE

00:09–00:12.5 — LINKEDIN DRAFT

00:12.5–00:16 — X THREAD OPENER

00:16–00:19.5 — INSTAGRAM CAROUSEL COVER

00:19.5–00:23 — OUTREACH EMAIL DRAFT

00:23–00:30 — THE CONVERSATION

00:30–00:38 — THE NEXT DRAFT

00:38–00:42 — YOUR TEAM

One project. More than one way to explain it.

Reading an order correctly isn’t the same as processing it reliably.

Reading an order correctly isn’t the same as processing it reliably.

Coordinate your outreach.

A reply arrives. The follow-ups wait.

A reader’s question becomes a topic to address.

Who owns the handover?

Let’s start with a project your team has done.

Your starting point

Content to prepare

What happens next

Before we start.

Which project deserves a better explanation?