Usage examples

Situation: the team has discussed several topics and needs to preserve its decisions.

1. The person responsible adds a recording approved for processing.
2. Obtains the transcript and summary.
3. Checks decisions, names, and due dates against the recording.
4. Shares the agreed result with participants using an approved method.

Result: verified outcomes and clear next steps. If no assignee or due date was stated in the conversation, these must be clarified; an AI guess must not be treated as an agreement.

Situation: the team needs to recall where the previous discussion ended.

1. A staff member opens the project materials.
2. Selects accessible sources for the Assistant.
3. Asks: “What remains to be decided, and which options were discussed?”
4. Checks the answer against the materials and prepares an agenda.

Result: an agenda informed by previous discussions. This is an example of an on-demand request, not a promise that a briefing will be sent automatically.

Situation: a staff member missed a meeting but has access to its materials.

1. Reads the summary.
2. Finds the relevant topic in the transcript.
3. Checks the corresponding passage in the recording.
4. Clarifies ambiguous decisions with participants.

Result: an understanding of the discussion without listening to the entire recording. Access is granted according to the organization’s procedures.

Situation: an analyst has discussed request handling with a colleague and wants to document the process.

1. Adds a practice recording of the conversation that is approved for processing.
2. Finds the process steps and exceptions in the text.
3. Asks the Assistant to list the steps based on this recording.
4. Checks the answer and clarifies gaps with the interviewee.

Result: material for a process description. An option proposed in the conversation does not automatically become an approved requirement.

Situation: different launch options were discussed across several meetings, and the team needs to trace how a decision was reached.

1. A staff member selects accessible meetings on the topic.
2. Asks which options and decisions were discussed.
3. Checks the answer against dates and source passages.
4. If there is a contradiction, asks participants to confirm the current decision.

Result: a reconstructed history of the discussion. A later mention does not, by itself, prove that an earlier decision was revoked.

Situation: agreed decisions need to be shared with participants after a project meeting.

1. The person responsible checks the summary and creates draft minutes.
2. Clarifies the wording, assignees, and due dates.
3. Approves the reviewed document.
4. Selects a workspace and confirms the publication audience.
5. Publishes the minutes as a separate action.

Result: approved meeting minutes. Publishing the document does not, by itself, make the source audio accessible.

Situation: a staff member is comparing two sample instructions for preparing a demonstration. There is no meeting recording.

1. Uploads documents approved for processing to a personal or team folder and waits until they are ready for search.
2. Selects the required materials for the Assistant.
3. Asks: “Which preparation steps are the same, and which differ? Cite the sources.”
4. Opens the referenced document passages and checks the comparison.
5. If the instructions conflict, asks the person responsible which procedure is current.

Result: a comparison grounded in documents. The Assistant helps find and compare information; the absence of a relevant condition from the answer does not prove that it is absent from the documents.

Situation: a report based on practice materials needs to follow an organizational example. This workflow applies where file creation and templates are available in the deployment.

1. Select approved practice materials and an available report template.
2. Ask the Assistant to prepare a document using the selected sources.
3. Check values, citations, unfilled fields, and formatting.
4. Download the result or save it to a workspace after checking the audience.

Result: a reviewed document for further work. A template does not replace a person’s review of its content.

Situation: a participant wants a collection of open questions before a team meeting or a review of the outcomes afterwards.

1. Checks whether personal meeting agents are available at the site. Preparation before a meeting requires a connected, supported calendar.
2. Selects the trigger: before the meeting or after its recording has been processed.
3. Defines the agent’s task and selects accessible materials. For example: “List open questions and previous agreements, with references.”
4. After the run, opens the answer in a private conversation, checks its sources, and asks a follow-up question if needed.

Result: an answer based on the materials, ready for human review. An ordinary reminder delivers predefined text, while an agent prepares an answer from selected sources. A post-meeting run waits until the recording is ready, rather than merely until the call ends. If the feature is not enabled, the same question can be asked of the Assistant manually.

Situation: an administrator is preparing a practice workspace for a project team.

1. Identifies the participants and the actions they need: viewing, reviewing, and sharing results.
2. Grants the appropriate permissions and checks the visibility of practice materials using a test account.
3. If a compatible connection is available, configures the recording source and retrieval rules; a practice file upload is sufficient for an initial introduction.
4. Checks the path of one practice recording: receipt, processing, and access to its transcript and summary. The person responsible for the content checks the result against the conversation.
5. Shows the team how to obtain its first result and whom to contact if an error occurs.

Result: a prepared workflow for the team, with a verified practice example. Successfully processing one recording does not confirm every feature or other users’ permissions; available actions must be checked for the intended participants.

The following is a manually written practice example, not the result of an AI test. All names and circumstances are fictional; the format of an actual result depends on the selected template.

The team discussed the scope of the practice launch and selected recording upload and outcome viewing. Boris will prepare a test recording by September 30. The person who will lead the demonstration has not yet been chosen.

Include two scenarios in the practice launch: uploading a recording and viewing the outcomes.

• Action: prepare a test recording.
• Assignee: Boris — assigned by a person after the agreement has been verified.
• Due date: September 30; the year is clarified when assigning the item.

Who will lead the demonstration? Anna must not be assigned automatically just because she raised the question.

Checks the decision and due date against the recording, clarifies the year, assigns the action item, and only then approves the minutes. Selects the recipients when publishing. At the next meeting, the team returns to the question of who will lead the demonstration and the status of the action item.

Thesis · Thesis capabilities · Getting started