Limited published evidence · Scientific research
Scientific literature search, evidence assessment, novelty review and report generation
FutureHouse
Published account: Implemented scientific-research platform and agents; Phoenix is experimental, and wider public access was still planned in the source.
A published third-party example, not a Nuvepro customer case or evidence of a partnership.
What the source reports
Crow, Falcon and Owl cover literature answers, deeper reports and novelty assessment. Falcon accesses specialist databases including OpenTargets. The team reports controlled ablations in which removing agentic steps reduced answer accuracy, and describes LAB-Bench model selection. The case does not establish autonomous wet-lab operation.
Reported technology: Anthropic Claude within FutureHouse Aviary. Scope and outcomes are source-reported.
What the enterprise environment would need
The following is a proposed project design for an enterprise doing similar work. Published details are marked; the remaining systems, data and scenarios would be agreed for your project.
- Systems and tools
- Published: Aviary and specialist scientific databases. Proposed: reuse those tools; no full business application replica needed.
- Data and state
- Proposed: preserve literature corpus versions, search results, citations and permitted database access.
- People and handoffs
- Proposed: scientist judges evidence and selects subsequent experiments; evaluate that handoff separately from retrieval.
- Rules and authority
- Proposed: specify uncertainty and citation standards; chemistry restrictions need qualified safety review.
- Normal and exception cases
- Proposed: contradictory studies, inaccessible papers and no sufficient evidence.
- Reset and replay
- Proposed: replay fixed source snapshots while separately testing live retrieval drift; not a published operational feature here.
What needs checking
- Published: LAB-Bench selection and reported agentic ablation studies, without detailed results on this page.
- Proposed: blinded expert review, citation entailment and recall/precision on held-out questions.
- Proposed: use realistic research questions and access restrictions; generic office workflows would have weak fidelity.
Review environment fidelity, human capability and agent performance separately. The enterprise’s accountable owners decide acceptance of the shared workflow and any operating use.
Shape this around your enterprise
Bring a similar workflow and the people responsible for it. Together, define the records and systems to use, the result your team will build or configure, and how its owners will check it. Nuvepro scopes the simulation, environment and preparation. Agree any existing-agent evaluation, implementation assistance and production responsibilities separately.
Sources and limitations
Curation review: . This is the date this source example was reviewed, separate from source publication dates.
- Named enterprise operational adoption, production workflow acceptance and full ablation data are not supplied.