Qualitative synthesis
Prepares first-pass coding, quotes and themes for a qualified researcher to interpret.
Deliver engagements
The saved work
An interpretation the reviewer can challenge
The sponsor’s version uncertainty and the lead’s report of complete handovers concern distinct aspects of the process. The lead passage challenges a missing-information explanation for two cases; it does not contradict the sponsor’s experience or the distinction made in this theme. Treat its relationship as qualified rather than as an opposing account.
Evidence — 02-client-sponsor.txt: I could not tell which version the team was using.
Reason and limits: Fresh method2 run still uses the same lead quotation as both support and counter-evidence. Human review distinguishes the claim being challenged from the theme itself. This is a new run-specific judgement, not an automatic carry-over of the earlier T1 correction. Three authored accounts establish no frequency, cause or demand.
A related local example. It shows the stated part of the work, not every step in this design. Read it in saved outputs
- Starts when
- Authorised notes ready for analysis
- What it works from
- Interview notes, consent/rights, analysis method and sample limits
- What it prepares
- Traceable candidate themes, counterexamples and questions
- What your team decides
- Qualified researcher decides interpretation and warranted claims
What this helps your team do
This path has been checked in the fictional local build.
Responsibilities connected
See what each agent is responsible for preparing in this workflow. These are designs and local examples, not a set of independently running agents.
When it stops and asks
Missing/conflicting sources, unsupported calculations or unresolved judgement produce a partial result or explicit hold on the affected output.
Supported scope, source access and authority are agreed for each installation.