A score per person, against their own baseline, with a trend direction attached.
A score is only useful if you know what it is measuring. Ours measures how abnormal someone’s current research behaviour is for them — on a 0–100 scale rather than three coarse buckets — so you can set your own activation thresholds instead of accepting a vendor’s definition of “hot”.
Score alone is not enough, so each one carries a direction. High and rising is an opportunity. High and falling is a closing window. Moderate and steady is a nurture, not a phone call. Those three cases deserve three different responses.
We learn how this works for you today, from the people involved in it.
We agree what good looks like, who owns which step, and how success is measured.
We deliver the work in a narrow first slice you can see functioning.
We measure it, correct it, and widen it only once it holds.
Because population averages hide the thing that matters: change. A quiet researcher going from zero to three sessions is a stronger signal than a habitual reader staying busy.
It depends on capacity. We usually start conservatively, watch what converts, and lower the bar as your team proves it can work the volume.
Yes — the contributing topics and the comparison to baseline are visible, not a black box.
Tell us what you are trying to accomplish. If intent scoring is not the right starting point, we will say so.