---
title: A research workflow for AI founders
category: workflows
summary: Follow competitors, the research frontier, infrastructure shifts and your market, and turn it into a weekly competitive brief with comparisons you can trust.
order: 23
updated: 2026-10-07
next: research-workflow-research-teams
related: beacon-scope-parent-stream-and-source-channel, charts-tables-and-infographics
reference: /agent-guide.md, /docs/mcp
---

An AI founder works in a field that changes weekly. The useful questions are narrow. What did my competitors ship? What research is new in my area? What changed in models and compute under my product? What is the market saying?

This workflow answers each question with a standing watch. It presents the result as a competitive update.

## When to use this

Use it for a founder, a product lead or a strategist at an AI company. The agent must know the user's product. It must also know the three to ten competitors the user cares about and the technical area the user works in.

## Smallest working call

Find AI-company Streams. Search is free:

```mcp
synorb-stream-search
{"surface": "ai_companies", "page_size": 10}
```

New accounts normally get an "AI Companies" starter Beacon. List the starters first, so you build on what exists:

```mcp
synorb-beacons
{"tag": "starter"}
```

## What you get back

### Watches to build

| Watch | Scope | Filter |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Competitors** | One Stream per competitor, in one Beacon | `source_class: ["company_first_party"]`, `days: 2` for daily |
| **A competitor's single product line** | The competitor's Stream plus a source-channel filter | See the parent-Stream guide. Do not look for a Stream for each source channel |
| **Research frontier** | The `research_preprints` Streams, narrowed by your topic Tags | `source_class: ["academic_preprint"]`, `days: 7` |
| **Compute and models** | The `compute_infrastructure` and `semiconductors` Streams | `days: 7`, `significance: "high"` |
| **Market voices** | The `venture_capital` Streams, and relevant podcasts | `days: 7` |
| **Customers' public statements** | Public companies in your market | `source_class: ["earnings_transcript"]`, 30 days |

Find a competitor, then check it before you add it:

```mcp
synorb-stream-search
{"query": "COMPANY_NAME", "page_size": 3}
```

If another company owns your competitor, its coverage can sit as a source channel inside the parent's Stream. For example, the SpaceX Stream covers xAI's source channels. Search by the competitor's name. Read `source_channels` in `synorb-details`. Filter to that source channel.

### The weekly competitive update

1. **Lead line:** the move that most changes your user's position.
2. **Competitor moves:** one line each, with the source link. If three competitors released comparable things, add a **comparison table**. Build it from the Briefs' `facts`.
3. **Research that matters:** two or three items. Add one sentence on each to say if it threatens or helps.
4. **Underneath you:** compute and model changes that change cost or capability.
5. **Market:** what investors and customers say.
6. **Also seen:** one line.

A table is honest only if the rows share a measure and a unit. Pricing per million tokens, context length and release date are good candidates. If sources disagree or define a number differently, show both rows and say so. The charts guide has a helper that refuses to chart numbers that are not comparable.

### Reading a competitor's statements

If a competitor's announcement matters, open its Signal. The `claims` separate what the company **stated** from what it **showed**. Use `confidence` and `evidence`. A `measured` Claim backed by a `direct_quote` is stronger than an `inferred` one. Tell your user the difference.

## Failure modes

| Symptom | Cause | What to do |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A competitor is not found | Not covered, or covered inside a parent's Stream | Search the parent. Read the Stream's source channels. |
| Marketing noise | First-party posts include promotion | Filter to `significance: "high"`. Read the Brief's `why_it_matters`. |
| A comparison table mixes definitions | Sources report different bases | Show a row per source with its basis. Never average. |
| Research feels off-topic | Topic Tags too broad | Resolve narrower Tags, or combine `tag_names` with `query`. |
| Same story from three sources | Several Streams carry it | Group into one item with three links. |

## Make it good for your user

A founder reads this between meetings. Put the decision-changing item first. Keep the rest short and clear.

Never present a competitor's statement as established fact. Attribute it: "Example Co says its model cuts latency by 40%, per its own announcement". Offer to turn a recurring comparison into a saved Beacon plus a table template. Then next week's update starts where this one ended.

## Next guide

[A research workflow for research teams](/agent-resources/research-workflow-research-teams): reproducible literature tracking with an evidence table.