A research franchise lives or dies on whether it repeats the industry's claims or tests them. WorldbyFlow grades the claims everyone repeats as evidenced, partially evidenced or asserted without evidence, so the research your publication puts its name on can say which is which.
Written for Owns the research franchise at a trade or B2B publication.·Runs in the Technology domain
Owning the research desk at a trade publication means producing the pieces the industry cites and defending them when a vendor objects. The scans here are built for that desk: a trajectory read that separates attention from adoption, the numbers with issuers named, a hype check on the technology of the quarter, a read on the research lab behind the claims, and a literature review on the question the industry keeps arguing about.
Where a technology actually sits on its curve, with attention separated from adoption and the basis for the placement stated. The trend piece, graded.
The figures with each one's issuer and interpretation. The numbers your readers will cite, labeled by where they came from.
Capability claims graded as demonstrated, independently replicated, self-reported or asserted without evidence. The hype check the industry needs and rarely publishes.
A read on the lab behind the claims: what it has actually published and shipped, where its record is thin. The source under the press release.
What the research literature says on a question the industry argues about, disagreements included. The piece that settles, or honestly fails to settle, the argument.
The order matters. The first read gives you the structure; the next ones fill the parts that are hardest to source by hand.
Check the basis for the placement. If it separates attention from adoption the way your best analyst would, the desk can start from it.
What is demonstrated, what is self-reported, what is asserted. The piece vendors will object to and readers will save.
Each with its issuer and caveat. The chart sources, ready.
Export the sources for the methodology box, or share the read as a page linked from the piece.
Every figure and quote links to where it came from. A claim the scan could not source is marked as such rather than dressed up.
Export the sources for the methodology box, or share the read as a page your readers can open from the article.
Ask a follow-up question of any result, or run a Red Team pass that tries to break its own conclusions before someone else does. How the grades work →
Generative AI is not on one curve: the analyst record places core generative AI in a genuine Trough of Disillusionment on enterprise ROI proof, while capital investment and production-deployment volume are still accelerating…
The fastest way to judge the result is to pick a subject you know cold and read it against what you know. If a colleague sent you here with an invitation, the credits land on your account when you sign up.