These examples show how Kepler26 examines a workflow, designs the documents and tools people will use, and keeps people in control.
They are original, fictional scenarios based on common industry mechanics.
Three workflow examples
Claims support for medical and Medical, Legal and Regulatory teams, advisory-board reporting for medical affairs, and controlled content adaptation for pharma marketing, content operations and agency teams. These are not client work, deployed systems or measured outcome claims.
01
Claims support
From scattered sources to a reviewable evidence packet.
Medical, promotional-content and Medical, Legal and Regulatory teams
Representative brief
A content team needs to substantiate a proposed claim without losing the source context, required approvals or medical review that makes the evidence usable.
Current-state mechanics
Request arrives in email
Writers search folders and the web
Relevant passages are copied manually
Citations and annotations are rebuilt
The evidence decision is handed off with weak links back to sources
-
Representative target state
Capture a structured claim request
Retrieve only from the permitted source set
Surface passage, page and citation together
Assemble a reviewable evidence packet
Require a human support assessment
Implementation anatomy
Five layers of the system.
01Workflow layer
A structured request becomes a reviewable evidence packet with a named human support decision.
02AI layer
Retrieval surfaces passages, pages and citations; assembly prepares the packet and flags gaps.
03Integration layer
Approved repositories, literature sources and review handoffs connect where supported by client systems and APIs.
04Control layer
Source scope, exact-passage links, permissions and the medical review record keep the decision inspectable.
05Engineering layer
Request interface, retrieval and indexing, citation services, review workflow and audit records are built or configured.
Example deliverables
KEPLER26 / CLAIMS SUPPORTREPRESENTATIVE
01Structured request formA standard form that captures the claim, audience, allowed sources and review needs before work begins.
02Evidence source logA record linking each piece of evidence to its exact document, page and passage.
03Citation and annotation packA review pack containing formatted references and the marked passages that support each claim.
04Human review recordA record of who reviewed the evidence, what they decided and why.
Controls retained
Approved sources onlyThe system searches only documents that the team has already allowed for this work.
Evidence linked to exact pagesReviewers can open the precise page and passage behind each proposed claim.
People make support decisionsThe system finds evidence, but a qualified person decides whether it supports the claim.
Named medical reviewerA specific qualified reviewer is responsible for the final evidence decision.
What this demonstrates
This design shows how retrieval and assembly can accelerate while the consequential evidence decision stays with a qualified reviewer.
What we would measure
Search time / Packet preparation time / Citation corrections / Reviewer confidence
02
Advisory-board reporting
From disconnected notes to evidence-linked themes.
Medical affairs and medical communications teams
Representative brief
A team needs to turn transcripts, notes and observations into an accurate report without flattening dissent, speaker context or medical interpretation.
Current-state mechanics
Merge multiple note streams
Clean and search the transcript
Tag comments in separate documents
Draft themes from memory and notes
Reconcile quotations during review
-
Representative target state
Create a time-linked transcript
Propose theme clusters for review
Link every theme to supporting excerpts
Keep dissent and uncertainty visible
Require medical interpretation and approval
Implementation anatomy
Five layers of the system.
01Workflow layer
Transcript preparation, theme review, quotation verification and medical interpretation form one traceable process.
02AI layer
AI proposes theme clusters, retrieves supporting excerpts and highlights disagreement without deciding what the discussion means.
03Integration layer
Approved meeting records, project workspaces and report templates connect where the environment supports them.
04Control layer
Project access, speaker context, source quotations, minority views and named medical approval remain visible.
01Theme and quotation tableA table connecting each proposed theme to the exact comments that support it.
02Disagreement and uncertainty logA record of comments that conflict, differ from the majority or remain unclear.
03Report templateA ready-made report structure that keeps findings, evidence and actions organized consistently.
04Medical interpretation promptsQuestions that help medical reviewers test the meaning, limits and implications of each finding.
Controls retained
Speaker context retainedComments stay connected to who said them and what was being discussed at the time.
Source quotation requiredEvery theme must point to the exact words in the transcript or notes that support it.
Minority views preservedOpinions that differ from the group remain visible instead of being averaged away.
The team owns the interpretationPeople decide what the discussion means for medical or business strategy.
What this demonstrates
This design separates mechanical organization from scientific interpretation, making AI-assisted analysis easier to inspect and challenge.
What we would measure
Time to first analysis / Statements without supporting quotations / Review rework / Different opinions retained
03
Content adaptation
From repeated rebuilding to controlled reuse.
Pharma marketing, content operations and agency teams
Representative brief
Approved source content must be adapted across audiences and channels while keeping claim history, references and final Medical, Legal and Regulatory accountability intact.
Current-state mechanics
Find the latest source asset
Copy claims into a new format
Rewrite variants independently
Relink references and required text
Compare versions before review
-
Representative target state
Retrieve approved content modules
Generate a bounded adaptation draft
Keep claim and reference history
Flag changed context and exceptions
Route a complete package for human review
Implementation anatomy
Five layers of the system.
01Workflow layer
Approved modules move through bounded adaptation, change review and final Medical, Legal and Regulatory approval.
02AI layer
AI drafts within channel rules, compares versions and identifies context changes or missing required elements.
03Integration layer
Content libraries, project systems and supported Veeva or Microsoft workflows can connect through approved interfaces.
04Control layer
Approval history, references, audience constraints, permissions and final human review travel with the content.
05Engineering layer
Module store, adaptation service, rules engine, comparison interface and review package are built or configured.
Example deliverables
KEPLER26 / CONTENT ADAPTATIONREPRESENTATIVE
01Approved content library planA plan for organizing reusable content that has already passed the required review.
02Claim history recordA record showing where each claim came from, its supporting evidence and its approval history.
03Rules for adapting content by channelClear limits on what may change when approved content is reused in email, web, social or other formats.
04Summary of changes for reviewersA concise list of what changed from the approved source so reviewers can focus their checks.
Controls retained
Approved content onlyThe workflow reuses only content that has already passed the required review.
Reference history preservedEach reused claim stays connected to its original references and approval history.
Context changes flaggedReviewers are alerted when edits may change the audience, meaning or balance of approved content.
Final Medical, Legal and Regulatory decision retainedMedical, Legal and Regulatory reviewers continue to make the final approval decision.
What this demonstrates
This design demonstrates controlled reuse: the system carries forward trusted structure while people own strategy, context and approval.
What we would measure
Adaptation cycle time / Reference relinking / Version defects / Review rounds
Bring us your workflow
Bring us one process worth examining.
We will use your real constraints, systems and standards to determine what should be removed, assisted or kept firmly human.
