The difficult part of researching several websites is often the comparison. One page lists a monthly price, another quotes annual billing, and a third leaves an important limit unanswered.
AI can help organize the material, but it needs a clear question and evidence worth organizing. Here is a workflow you can use with an assistant that supports your sources.
We’ll use a hypothetical purchase of a scheduling tool. The example is a method, not a report from a completed product test.
1. Write the decision before opening more tabs
“We need a scheduling tool” is too broad. Try:
Compare three scheduling tools for a five-person team. We need calendar integration, a shared booking page, and data export. Keep the total below our stated monthly budget. Show unanswered questions separately.
Add the budget and any hard requirements before asking for a recommendation. Otherwise, the assistant may organize the comparison around features that don’t matter to you.
2. Collect the primary sources
For each candidate, open its pricing page, relevant documentation, and terms for the feature you need. Record the page URL and the date you checked it.
Use reviews to find questions worth investigating. Confirm important product claims against the vendor’s own documentation where possible.
If two articles repeat the same announcement, treat them as one underlying piece of evidence, rather than independent confirmation.
3. Extract facts before asking for a winner
Work through each source with a request such as:
From this page, extract the billing basis, minimum seats, export limits, and calendar requirements. Include the supporting passage or link for each fact. Write “not stated” when the page does not answer.
In IntentX, you can open a page and use Ask beside it. Don’t assume that opening three tabs means the assistant has read all three. Work through the sources explicitly or use a supported research task with the access it needs.
Keep a source log in a document you control. That also makes the method usable if your assistant cannot retain the whole comparison.
A first exercise using IntentX’s own release notes
Before using private vendor material, try the method on our public 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 release notes. Open each source and ask for the changes relevant to browsing, retaining the release version and source link beside each note. Then supply the two sets of notes for comparison.
Keep “the release notes do not mention this” separate from “the product cannot do this.” A release page records changes; it is not a complete feature specification.
Start with one release page and ask about that source in Ask. Check the answer before moving to the next release. For the comparison, supply the verified notes and both source links. Keeping the pages in one Space helps you find them again, but does not automatically make both sources available to the answer.
You can use a short source log like this in your own notes:
Source: [page URL]
Version or date: [as stated on the page]
Relevant change: [what the source actually confirms]
Unanswered question: [what still needs checking]
Keep this log outside the conversation too, so you can revisit the decision without repeating the research.
4. Make the differences visible
Use a simple structure for each candidate:
- Cost: amount, billing interval, seat count, and any minimum commitment.
- Requirements: what the documentation actually confirms.
- Limitations: missing information, exceptions, and plan restrictions.
- Evidence: source links and dates checked.
Never turn “not stated” into “not supported.” Missing documentation is a question to resolve.
5. Ask for a recommendation with conditions
Supply the verified notes and ask:
Recommend an option using these requirements. Separate documented facts from your judgment. Explain what missing answer could change the recommendation.
You should be able to disagree with the weighting. A lower price may matter less than a requirement that saves the team repeated manual work.
6. Verify the claims that decide the outcome
Open the sources behind the recommendation. Check numbers, plan names, billing conditions, and feature limits. If a source conflicts with another, preserve the disagreement until you resolve it.
For a purchase, account change, or external message, review the proposed action separately. A useful research draft does not itself authorize a transaction.
Save the decision, not just the tabs
Keep the final comparison, source log, and unresolved questions together. Add a date for checking the information again if the decision will wait.
For IntentX’s task flow and access requirements, see How it works and Connections. Start with a bounded question you can verify before handing over a larger research job.