ResearchCitationsEvidence mapsDecision support
Upcube Research Engine
When decisions matter, “vibes” aren’t enough. Upcube turns messy inputs into grounded, citeable outputs: briefs, competitive comparisons, evidence maps, and stakeholder-ready narratives—without pretending uncertainty doesn’t exist.
Position: Upcube is a research-to-action layer: clarify the question → gather evidence → synthesize tradeoffs → ship a decision artifact. Not “one prompt = truth.” Real workflows with accountability.
Snapshot
Research briefs
Grounded summaries with citations.
Question • Evidence • Takeaways
Competitive intel
Comparisons and capability maps.
Alternatives • Gaps • Differentiators
Decision memos
Tradeoffs, assumptions, and risks.
Options • Risks • Recommendation
Evidence maps
What’s known, unknown, disputed.
Known • Unknown • Disputed
Offerings
Start with a single deliverable (a brief, a comparison, an evidence map), then expand into a repeatable research pipeline with review gates and clear provenance.
1) Grounded research briefs
- • Source-backed summaries with citation links
- • Key claims + supporting evidence + confidence notes
- • Stakeholder-ready “what changed” updates
- • Assumptions stated (no hidden leaps)
Example: “brief pack” output
• One-page brief (exec summary + key claims)
• Appendix: citations + quotes + links
• Risk notes: what would change the conclusion
2) Competitive comparisons
- • Feature/capability matrices with traceable sources
- • Market maps and positioning narratives
- • “Switching costs” + integration considerations
- • Differentiation: what’s real vs marketing
Example: “comparison pack” output
• 1-page scorecard + narrative
• Capability table + links
• “So what?” recommendations by persona
3) Decision support
- • Decision memos with options and tradeoffs
- • Risk framing and pre-mortems
- • Metrics definitions and measurement plans
- • Follow-up questions that de-risk the next step
Example: “decision memo” output
• Context + constraints
• Options table (pros/cons + costs)
• Recommendation + assumptions
The research workflow (question → evidence → artifact)
Phase 1 — Define the question
- • What decision is this supporting?
- • What constraints matter (time, cost, policy, safety)?
- • What would “good evidence” look like?
- • What are the known unknowns?
A fuzzy question creates a fake-precise answer. Start sharp.
Phase 2 — Gather sources
- • Primary sources first (docs, specs, filings, studies)
- • Cross-check claims across independent sources
- • Track citations and direct quotes
- • Mark contradictions instead of hiding them
If it can’t be traced, it doesn’t ship.
Phase 3 — Synthesize and stress-test
- • Pull out decision-relevant facts (not trivia)
- • Label confidence and uncertainty
- • Write counterarguments and failure modes
- • Separate “what’s true” from “what we assume”
Don’t optimize for certainty. Optimize for correctness.
Phase 4 — Ship the artifact
- • Briefs, memos, decks, FAQs, or internal docs
- • “What changed” update notes for new evidence
- • Next-step questions and experiment plans
- • Ownership: humans approve and publish
Research that doesn’t land in a usable artifact is a hobby.
Example: “evidence map” export
Known
Claims with strong, consistent sources.
Unknown
Missing data or unclear measurement.
Disputed
Conflicting sources or interpretations.
Standards & guardrails
Upcube supports speed, but it also supports responsibility. Research output is only valuable if it is traceable, reviewable, and honest about uncertainty.
Citations by default
Claims link back to sources or quotes. No “trust me” outputs.
Uncertainty labels
Confidence is explicit. Unknowns and disputes are surfaced, not buried.
Human ownership
Humans approve production-impacting conclusions and publish the final artifact.
What Upcube will not do
• Fabricate sources, quotes, or citations.
• Hide assumptions or present speculation as fact.
• “Certainty theater” when the evidence is mixed or missing.
• Replace accountable decision-makers with automated conclusions.
Contact: [email protected]