Home Hub Features Modes Use Cases How-To Guides Pricing About Login

Orchestration Mode

Research Symphony: A 4-Stage Research Pipeline

Retrieval. Analysis. Validation. Synthesis. Four specialized AI roles working in sequence to produce cross-verified research with proper source attribution.

The validator specifically looks to contradict the analyzer. Disagreements surface as documented uncertainty rather than hidden risk. Research you can defend.

Single-AI research has a credibility problem

One model, one perspective, one set of potential hallucinations. You get confident-sounding answers with no way to verify accuracy. For due diligence work – where missing something can cost millions – hope isn’t a strategy.

Research that’s been reviewed by a single analyst inherits that analyst’s blind spots. If the AI that analyzes is the same AI that validates, you’ve just asked someone to check their own homework.

Research Symphony solves this by separating research into distinct phases, each handled by a different AI with a different role – including an explicit validation phase designed to challenge the analysis.

Four stages. Four specialized roles.

Each AI sees what came before. Each has a specific job. The validator’s job is to find problems with the analysis.

1

Retrieval

Perplexity Sonar

Gathers current sources, real-time data, and citations from across the web. Everything is sourced and linked.

2

Analysis

GPT-5.2

Identifies patterns, extracts insights, and builds initial synthesis from retrieved data. Logical structure and frameworks.

3

Validation

Claude Opus 4.5

Challenges claims, flags weak evidence, and catches logical gaps. Explicitly trying to find problems in the analysis.

4

Synthesis

Gemini 3 Pro

Produces final deliverable with confidence-weighted findings. Clear separation between verified and uncertain.

Built-in adversarial validation

The key innovation is Stage 3: Validation. Claude isn’t asked to review the analysis – it’s asked to attack it. Find the weak claims. Question the evidence. Identify what’s missing.

When the validator catches a problem, that problem appears in the final synthesis as documented uncertainty – not hidden risk. You know where your evidence is strong and where it needs more investigation.

The result: Research that separates “verified findings” from “areas requiring further investigation.” Due diligence with explicit confidence levels, not false certainty.

PE Firm Evaluating SaaS Acquisition

Query: “Analyze [Company]’s competitive position, churn indicators, and market headwinds”

Stage 1: Retrieval

Perplexity

Pulls G2 reviews (47 total, 4.2 avg rating), LinkedIn headcount trends (engineering down 12% in 6 months), SEC filings, press coverage from last 90 days, competitor release notes. All sources cited and linked.

Stage 2: Analysis

GPT-5.2

Identifies pattern: 3 senior engineers left in 6 months, product releases slowed from monthly to quarterly, competitive mentions in G2 reviews declined 23% YoY. Builds framework: “Product velocity concerns warrant due diligence on roadmap execution.”

Stage 3: Validation

Claude

“The churn indicators derived from G2 sample size (47 reviews) may not be statistically significant for a company of this size. However, the engineering departure pattern is corroborated by LinkedIn data and appears reliable. The competitive decline metric conflates overall market changes with company-specific factors.”

Stage 4: Synthesis

Gemini

Risk matrix with confidence levels. High confidence: engineering velocity concerns. Medium confidence: competitive positioning decline. Low confidence/needs verification: customer churn indicators. Recommended diligence questions for management team. Clear separation between what’s verified and what needs more investigation.

Result

The validation stage caught a weak claim that initial analysis presented as fact. You know where your evidence is strong (engineering departures) and where it needs verification (G2-derived churn data). Due diligence with documented uncertainty, not false confidence.

When to use Research Symphony

Due Diligence

M&A research, investment analysis, vendor evaluation. When you need research that distinguishes verified facts from assumptions.

Competitive Intelligence

Market landscape analysis, competitor positioning, threat assessment. Cross-verified intelligence with sourced claims you can present to stakeholders.

Market Research

TAM/SAM analysis, customer segment research, trend identification. Data-backed insights with explicit confidence levels.

Literature Review

Academic research synthesis, industry report analysis, technical documentation review. Proper citation and validated claims.

Risk Assessment

Regulatory risk, market risk, operational risk. Systematic identification with validation that challenges initial assumptions.

Strategic Analysis

Market entry decisions, partnership evaluation, strategic planning. Research that stakeholders can trust because methodology is transparent.

Generate professional deliverables

Research Symphony output translates directly into polished documents.

Due Diligence Memos

Structured findings with confidence levels

Competitive Briefs

Cross-verified intelligence reports

Research Papers

Academic-grade synthesis with citations

Market Analysis

Data-backed market intelligence

Research Symphony vs. Sequential

SequentialResearch Symphony
StructureOpen-ended buildingSpecialized phases
AI rolesAll contribute equallyRetriever, Analyzer, Validator, Synthesizer
ValidationImplicit (natural disagreement)Explicit (dedicated validation phase)
Best forExploration, discussion, ideationResearch, due diligence, verified findings
OutputMultiple perspectivesConfidence-weighted synthesis

Research with built-in validation. Findings you can defend.

Cross-verified analysis. Documented uncertainty. Research that distinguishes what’s proven from what’s assumed.