Example
How to run a research literature review without drowning in a PDF folder
Claire's problem is not a lack of effort. It is that Produce a screening table against the written protocol, with out-of-scope papers parked, so the coauthor can see what is in and why has outgrown scattered reminders, tabs, and memory. This fictional playbook shows a concrete Board, the Cards inside it, one consequential Room, and the line Ava does not cross.
This fictional example was created with AI assistance from a structured editorial brief and reviewed by the You.one Editorial Team for usefulness, distinctness, and product truth.
Claire is an explicitly fictional portrait, not a customer or testimonial.
The Scoping review Board gives one mission a visible field; the Choose the adjacent paper Room keeps its evidence, conversation, state, and decision together.
Current Superboard provides the durable structure and explicit, bounded Ava paths described here; broader proactive or external work is not a current promise.
Claire's pressure is ordinary—and still heavy
Claire is a fictional 34-year-old public-health researcher drafting a scoping review in Kingston, Ontario. Claire has 180 saved PDFs, a protocol with inclusion rules, and a coauthor waiting on a table. A new paper dropped that is adjacent but not in scope. The folder is named FINAL_review and is not.
Claire can read. The review fails when every interesting PDF is treated as in, and the table the coauthor needs never appears.
A reference manager, a desktop folder, and comments in a shared doc all hold different inclusion decisions.
The new adjacent paper would make a better story and would reopen the protocol.
Saved is not screened; adjacent is not included
The mission is specific: Produce a screening table against the written protocol, with out-of-scope papers parked, so the coauthor can see what is in and why
The consequential choice is not something a board or an AI should quietly make: Whether to keep the protocol and exclude the new paper, amend the protocol with the coauthor, or park the paper for a later piece
That distinction matters. Superboard can make the work, evidence, waiting, and decision visible. Claire still owns the purpose, tradeoff, and final call.
Available today
Scoping review: one Board shape to adapt
A useful Board gives this mission one durable operating picture. Claire does not have to convert life into project-management jargon or decide the perfect taxonomy first. Lists separate kinds of attention; Cards keep each meaningful item visible and movable.
The Cards are deliberately mixed. Some are tasks, some are decisions, some hold a person or promise, and some are reference points. Current Superboard supports that flexibility without flattening the mission into one long to-do list.
| List | What belongs here |
|---|---|
| Mission | Protocol rules and the table the coauthor needs |
| Screening | Papers in, out, and undecided |
| Included | Sources that survived the rules |
| Notes | Themes that must not replace screening |
| Waiting | Coauthor and full-text requests |
Available today
The Cards make the operating picture concrete
A Board becomes useful when the Card titles sound like the actual situation. These are not generic placeholders; they show what Claire would need to see to run this mission without carrying every open loop in memory.
| Card | List | Job |
|---|---|---|
| Table against the protocol | Mission | Keep inclusion rules beside the delivery the coauthor is waiting on |
| Choose the adjacent paper | Screening | Compare exclude, amend-protocol, and park-for-later options |
| PDF folder FINAL_review | Screening | Treat saved files as unscreened until they have a decision |
| Inclusion rule: human studies only | Mission | Keep a written rule visible when a better story appears |
| Coauthor waiting on the table | Waiting | Hold the delivery so reading cannot hide it |
| Theme note: equity language | Notes | Capture a theme without letting it replace screening |
Available today
Available today: Choose the adjacent paper becomes a Room
Opening the Card gives the visible item durable depth. Stage can hold Inclusion brief: Place protocol rules, coauthor date, and exclude / amend / park options on one page. Chat keeps the request and response beside that artifact instead of in a detached thread. Pulse can show Waiting for Claire to choose whether the protocol holds. Activity preserves the attributable Card record supported by the current product.
A useful Card Chat request would be: “Using only this Board, compare excluding the new paper, amending the protocol, and parking it for later. Do not write the review or choose for me.” When live AI is configured, current Ava can respond to an explicit Card mention using supported context and can make limited reversible product changes. She does not deeply reason over the whole Board by default, and she does not gain authority over the decision merely because the context is organized.
Claire's call remains explicit: Claire and her coauthor choose inclusion, write the review, and own every citation
| Surface | Job in this example |
|---|---|
| Stage | Inclusion brief: Place protocol rules, coauthor date, and exclude / amend / park options on one page |
| Chat | Keep Claire's request and Ava's attributed response with the work |
| Pulse | Waiting for Claire to choose whether the protocol holds |
| Activity | Preserve attributed Card changes and the supported record around the request |
What to ask Ava—and what not to assume
These are useful requests to adapt, not claims that current Ava automatically surveys the whole Board, prepares every comparison, or follows up on her own. The relevant facts must be present in supported Board/Card context, and the human still checks the result.
Claire owns the science, citations, and coauthor conversations. Ava does not write the review, invent sources, or decide inclusion.
The modest outcome is not that Ava lives Claire's life. The modest outcome is a table that matches the protocol: saved is not screened, the adjacent paper is a decision, and the coauthor can see why.
- Request idea: summarize screening status, included sources, and waiting deliveries already on the Board
- Request idea: compare inclusion options using the written protocol Claire captured
- Request idea: help keep theme notes from replacing screening decisions
A reference manager plus a FINAL folder may still be enough
A reference manager plus a FINAL folder is enough when the set is already screened
It starts to break when 180 PDFs and a tempting adjacent paper all feel equally in
Superboard earns a place only when the responsibility needs a durable picture around the list: the reason, artifact, conversation, current state, decision, and history.
A starter recipe to adapt, not obey
Use the names that already make sense in Claire's world. The recipe is successful when the Board reduces remembering and exposes the real decision—not when every Card is perfectly categorized.
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1. Put the protocol on the Board | Rules before PDFs |
| 2. Screen into in/out/undecided | Saved is not included |
| 3. Separate theme notes | Themes are not inclusion |
| 4. Name the delivery | The table the coauthor needs |
| 5. Decide protocol exceptions | Open a Room instead of quietly expanding scope |
Direction
Direction, not a current promise
Later, Ava may help this Board notice when a screening Card is still undecided and the table is due, still leaving every inclusion with Claire.
The unified You.one and Superboard runtime, cross-product personalized Memory Spine, broad proactive coordination, realtime shared editing, and general external execution are not available today. Future actions would still require the applicable capability, connection, grant, and human authority.
What this realistic example does not claim
- Claire is fictional and is not a customer, testimonial, research participant, or disguised real person.
- This is not a scientific finding, medical advice, or systematic-review claim.
- It does not show Ava writing papers or deciding inclusion.
- It is not a measured publication result.