Example
How to run a research literature review without drowning in a PDF folder
Claire’s folder says FINAL_review, but saved is not screened. She must exclude the adjacent paper, park it for a later piece, or propose a protocol amendment to her coauthor without quietly broadening the science.
Produce a screening table against the written protocol, with out-of-scope papers parked, so the coauthor can see what is in and why
Protocol rules and the table the coauthor needs
Keep inclusion rules beside the delivery the coauthor is waiting on
Compare exclude, amend-protocol, and park-for-later options
Keep the criterion that excludes the commentary visible when its story is tempting
Hold the delivery so reading cannot hide it
Unscreened, excluded, and undecided papers
Treat saved files as unscreened until they have a decision
Show one source that failed the written criterion
Keep the tempting paper undecided until Claire chooses a posture
Sources that survived the rules
Show one source that survived the written protocol
Themes that must not replace screening
Capture a theme without letting it replace screening
The Scoping review Board separates protocol rules, screening decisions, included sources, and theme notes without making a scientific finding.
Open Choose the adjacent paper as a Room with the written criterion, coauthor delivery, source state, and exclude, park, or amendment-proposal paths.
Ava can compare only the sourced evidence Claire supplies. Claire owns screening, citations, analysis, and the recommendation; any amendment requires coauthor agreement, and Ava does not decide eligibility.
Saved is not screened; adjacent is not included
What belongs together 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 judgment remains human: Whether Claire should exclude the new paper, park it for a later piece, or take a protocol-amendment proposal to her coauthor.
You.one can keep the work, several kinds of evidence, and “Choose the adjacent paper” decision visible through its Superboard view. The organized facts support Claire; they do not replace Claire's judgment: Claire chooses what to recommend; any protocol amendment requires her coauthor’s agreement. They own the review and every citation.
What changes after a reference manager plus a FINAL folder
A reference manager plus a FINAL folder can be enough while the situation stays simple: the set is already screened.
It starts to break when 180 PDFs and a tempting adjacent paper all feel equally in.
The Scoping review Board earns its place only when the familiar tool—a reference manager plus a FINAL folder—can no longer keep the reason, Inclusion brief, conversation, current state, decision, and history connected.
Available today
A focused Scoping review Board
The Scoping review Board gives this mission one durable operating picture. Claire can use familiar language instead of translating the situation into project-management jargon. Its four Lists separate the kinds of attention this situation actually requires.
The point is a fast scan: what is moving, what is known, what is unresolved, and what Claire must choose. Questions not yet asked stay with Claire; they do not move to a list for outside replies.
Swipe or scroll sideways to see every column.
| List | What belongs here |
|---|---|
| Mission | Protocol rules and the table the coauthor needs |
| Screening | Unscreened, excluded, and undecided papers |
| Included | Sources that survived the rules |
| Notes | Themes that must not replace screening |
Available today
Inside the “Choose the adjacent paper” Room
Opening the Card gives the visible item durable depth. Stage can hold Inclusion brief: Place protocol rules, coauthor date, and exclude / park / propose-amendment options on one page. Chat keeps the request and response beside that artifact instead of in a detached thread. Pulse can show “Open decision: Claire will choose whether to exclude the adjacent paper, park it for later, or propose a protocol amendment.”
A Card Chat request can ask Ava to prepare the specific comparison or extraction in “Choose the adjacent paper” from the visible evidence. Ava can work from the context Claire deliberately brings into this Card, List, or Board; she cannot monitor the rest of life, contact anyone, or inherit the decision.
Claire's call remains explicit: Claire chooses what to recommend; any protocol amendment requires her coauthor’s agreement. They own the review and every citation.
Swipe or scroll sideways to see every column.
| Surface | Job in this example |
|---|---|
| Stage | Inclusion brief: Place protocol rules, coauthor date, and exclude / park / propose-amendment options on one page |
| Chat | Keep Claire's request and Ava's attributed response with the work |
| Pulse | Open decision: Claire will choose whether to exclude the adjacent paper, park it for later, or propose a protocol amendment |
What Ava can prepare from visible context
These requests stay with the facts Claire has made visible around “Choose the adjacent paper.” Claire supplies the evidence, checks Ava's work, and decides what belongs in the Room.
Current Ava can prepare help after an explicit request. She cannot make the choice, represent Claire, watch other work on her own, or contact anyone.
Claire owns the science, citations, and coauthor conversations. Ava does not write the review, invent sources, or decide inclusion.
A table that matches the protocol: saved is not screened, the adjacent paper is a decision, and the coauthor can see why.
- Request idea: using only the context visible in this Card Room, compare excluding the new paper, parking it for later, and taking a protocol-amendment proposal to the coauthor. Do not write the review, contact the coauthor, or choose for me.
- Request idea: use only the Inclusion brief and notes the Owner has placed in this Card Room to separate facts, assumptions, and unanswered questions
- Request idea: from “Choose the adjacent paper,” draft a short decision note and name Claire as the decider
A starter shape, not a prescribed workflow
Claire should rename every List or Card that feels artificial. This recipe succeeds when “Choose the adjacent paper” becomes easier to decide and fewer open loops depend on memory—not when the Board looks tidy.
Swipe or scroll sideways to see every column.
| 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. Choose the adjacent paper | Open a Room instead of quietly expanding scope |
Where this example stops
- This is a fictional example, not a customer story.
- 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.