Bring the pages and PDFs you choose. Make a briefing, compare evidence, or check a claim. Save the sources and working instructions in a Persona for the next task.
Your Locus account also opens the Ikentic Workbench, built on IKE. Use Knowledge still available in your account, capture new pages with Locus, or upload the example material below.
Choose one job. In the Workbench, select Research Companion with Direct, start a fresh conversation, and attach its files. Ask the starting question, then check the important claims against the originals. Each example gives you a follow-up that tests whether the answer holds up.
A new announcement lands. Does it change the client’s next step?
A regional importer is considering a warehouse near Gainesville, Georgia. An inland-port announcement looks promising. The director wants to know whether to commission a costed route comparison before spending more time on the idea.
This is a fictional client using real, dated public announcements. Start with the briefing pack: a client situation and short summaries linked to the Georgia Ports Authority and Norfolk Southern originals. Upload the pack and ask:
Prepare the director’s briefing from this material. Should we commission a costed route comparison, and what needs checking first? Separate source facts, client assumptions and unanswered questions. Name each source and its publication date. Keep planned service separate from operating service and capacity separate from actual usage. Keep the briefing under 350 words.
Check the answer: the announcement cannot establish savings for this client. Freight quotes, shipment volumes, warehouse terms and service commitments still need checking.
Then add an update: upload the later announcement summary and ask: “Does this change our next step? Show the earlier position, new evidence, what changes, and what remains unknown.” Check the original publication date as well as the conclusion.
Try this in the WorkbenchTwo studies agree on housing. Do they agree on health?
You are reviewing a council briefing that says “Housing First improves housing stability and health.” You have two trials with different populations and support models. You need wording that preserves those differences.
Get the original PDFs from Stergiopoulos and colleagues’ Toronto trial (2015) and Somers and colleagues’ Vancouver trial (2017). Each article page has a Download PDF option. Attach both in a fresh conversation and ask:
Using these two papers, can we tell a council that Housing First improves both housing stability and health? Compare the populations, support models, measured outcomes and limits in a short table. Give a source section, figure, table or page for each important claim. Suggest two sentences we could responsibly use. Explain where a direct comparison would mislead. Use only these papers.
Check the answer: keep moderate and high support needs separate. Check housing stability against the housing results, and inspect each health or service-use outcome individually. These two older papers form a reading exercise, not a current evidence review.
Then challenge the conclusion: “A colleague says the Vancouver paper proves congregate housing is better for everyone. Which comparisons did the study actually test, and what further evidence would we need?” Inspect Tables 2 and 3 and the statistical-analysis section.
Try this in the WorkbenchAn impressive number needs the right sentence around it.
You are outlining an essay on sugary-drink taxes. Your notes contain “189,300 diabetes cases prevented.” Before using it, you need to know what the paper actually measured or estimated.
Download the original PDFs from Silver and colleagues’ Berkeley evaluation (2017) and Sánchez-Romero and colleagues’ Mexico study (2016). Attach both in a fresh conversation and ask:
Can I write that the tax in Mexico prevented 189,300 diabetes cases? Check that sentence using these two papers. Explain what the number means and show the supporting passage with a section, table or page I can inspect. Help me improve the sentence if it needs changing. Use only these papers.
Check the answer: inspect the Mexico paper’s abstract and Table 2. Look for the study design, time period, population and assumptions attached to the number. Keep the Berkeley study’s purchases and self-reported consumption separate from health outcomes.
Then build your own argument: “Make four rows: a possible essay point, supporting paper, source location, and caveat. Flag one tempting claim these papers do not establish.” Review the passages before deciding which points belong in your essay.
Try this in the WorkbenchA Persona keeps a job, its instructions, and the Knowledge you choose together. Once an example helps, create or edit a Persona and explicitly save the instructions you want to reuse. Add your sources in Knowledge and associate them with that Persona. Files attached only to a chat still need that separate Knowledge step.
For the briefing, save this rule: “Start each update with the earlier position, new evidence, what changes, and what remains unknown. Name the original source dates.” Start a fresh conversation with that Persona and ask what the new material changes. Check whether the setup gives you a useful starting point.
That is the workflow to compare with your current routine: gathering sources, getting an answer, checking it, and picking up the next task. Count the setup and correction effort too. Saved instructions still need your judgment.
Capture relevant pages with Locus, upload documents, or choose sources still available in your account. Existing retention rules apply. Keep the originals available so you can check important claims and dates.
Get Locus to capture a source