AI should reduce the workload for your team.

We find the repetitive mechanics buried inside medical writing, content operations and client delivery, then redesign the workflow so your people can spend more time thinking, deciding and creating.

When the redesign requires software, integrations or enterprise architecture, we can engineer and deploy the system that makes the target workflow operate in practice.

Remove

  • Repetition
  • Re-keying
  • Rework

Assist

  • Search
  • Assembly
  • Quality checks

Protect

  • Judgment
  • Strategy
  • Accountability

Common workflow noise

Recognize any of this?

  1. 01Scouring the web and databases for papers
  2. 02Extracting evidence into working documents
  3. 03Building annotations and citations
  4. 04Mapping claims to substantiating sources
  5. 05Preparing structured first drafts
  6. 06Comparing versions and consolidating feedback
  7. 07Reformatting the same content across deliverables
  8. 08Repeating project setup and handoffs

Three flagship demonstrations

Inspect the method from three angles.

These are fictional, predetermined demonstrations of Kepler26's design approach, not client systems or measured results.

Workflow X-RayA step-by-step view of where time goes, how often work repeats and which tasks people, AI or software should handle.

See what the process is asking people to do.

Choose a workflow, inspect each step and compare today's process with an illustrative redesigned model.

Estimated effort for one cycle52 hours

Selected step

Define scientific story

Expert interpretation and narrative intent remain human-led.

Human time
4 h
Repetition
Low
Risk
High
Suggested handling
Keep

Claims-support demonstrationAn example of finding and organizing the evidence and references behind a medical or promotional claim.

Trace the claim. Surface the evidence. Keep the reviewer.

This prebuilt demonstration shows how Kepler26 can speed up finding and packaging evidence while a person still makes the evidence decision.

Simulated promotional claim
“Treatment X reduced mean symptom score by 42% at Week 12, compared with 27% for placebo.”
01

Source located

Example randomized trial · Primary publicationMatched by outcome measured, patient group and timing
02

Passage surfaced

At Week 12, mean symptom score decreased 42% from the starting score in the Treatment X group and 27% in the placebo group.
03

Citation assembled

Example Author et al. Journal Name. 2026;00:000–000.Page 7 · Results · Column 2 · Lines 14–19
04

Human assessment required

Fictional claim and source shown for demonstration only. No live model call or medical conclusion is being made.

Example transformations

Explore how the workflow changes.

These are illustrative models of how a workflow might change. They are deliberately labeled as examples until Kepler26 has verified client results to publish.

01Request received
02Search folders
03Search web
04Open sources
05Copy passages
06Build annotations
07Format citations
08Assemble pack
09Route review
process steps9
manual handoffs4
evidence workRepeated

Controls retained

  • Approved sources only
  • Evidence linked to exact pages
  • People assess claim support

Supporting workflow lab

Test the scale, context and shape of the work.

Use the supporting tools to estimate recurring friction, explore common workflow patterns and decide which parts of a deliverable should be accelerated, standardized or protected.

Cost of workflow frictionThe time and labor cost created by repetitive, unnecessary or poorly connected process steps.

Small tasks become expensive at scale.

Use a rough estimate to see whether the size of the workflow makes it worth examining more closely.

8 people
6 hours
45 %
24 projects
The average hourly employment cost across the people doing this work, including salary and related costs.$95 / hour

Rough annual estimateA ballpark calculation that shows scale and is not a promise of savings.

1,037

hours spent on potentially repetitive workEstimated work time spent on manual, repeated tasks that may be suitable for removal or assistance.

That is roughly 26 working weeks surrounding evidence-backed medical content development.

Total workflow time2,304 h
Estimated labor cost$218,880
Repetitive hours / project43 h

This directional estimate is not a savings claim. A Kepler26 diagnostic would determine how much can be safely removed, assisted or automated.

Email this estimate Examine this workflow

Give medical writers more time to interpret.

The goal is to remove the repetitive mechanics that keep writers from the scientific work requiring their expertise.

Information boundary

Literature, claims and approved references can be limited to the project-specific source set the workflow is permitted to use.

Remove

  • Repeating the same searches across projects
  • Copying references into multiple formats
  • Rebuilding standard project structures
  • Manual version comparison

Assist

  • Finding literature and pulling out evidence
  • Building annotations and citations
  • Linking claims to supporting evidenceConnecting every proposed claim to the exact research passages that support it.
  • First drafts from verified evidenceCreating an organized working draft from approved sources for a writer to review and improve.

Protect

  • Scientific interpretation
  • Narrative development
  • Accuracy and nuance
  • Final medical accountability

The repetition multiplier

The expensive problem is rarely one task.

It is the same request repeated across brands, accounts, channels and deliverables, each with its own search, update and review chain.

One familiar request
“Update this slide for the new indication.”

Current example: Medical writing · Searching, pulling out evidence, building citations and repeated drafting

24Searches repeated
48Citation updates
36Formatting passes
12Review packages
24Version chains

Deliverable anatomy

Open the deliverable. See where the work belongs.

A single output can contain several kinds of work, each of which may need a different approach.

Expertise

Scientific story

Interpret the evidence and decide the narrative the audience needs.

Keep human ownership.

A critical distinction

Protect the work that requires scientific rigor.

Searching, copying, formatting and routing can often be redesigned. Interpreting the evidence, understanding context, weighing risk and taking responsibility cannot simply be delegated to a model.

Kepler26 defines that boundary clearly, allowing automation to create capacity while preserving accountability.

Your workflow

Where is expertise being spent on mechanics?

Show us how the work happens today. We will help you separate what should disappear, what AI can assist and what must remain human.

Find the friction