Help your team find answers in approved company knowledge.
Help employees find answers in the company documents they are allowed to see. We start with a small pilot, check answers against the original sources and test permissions, so you can decide whether the assistant deserves a wider rollout.
An internal knowledge assistant retrieves relevant material from approved sources and uses it to support an answer. Useful scope includes source attribution, access controls, document freshness and a clear response when evidence is missing.
Best for
Teams with recurring knowledge questions and maintained sources
A named source owner and a bounded pilot audience
Consider another approach
The source material is missing or nobody can maintain it
A licensed tool already satisfies the task and access requirements
A chatbot for customers on your website or shop
Choose a tool before choosing a custom build
Compare a licensed enterprise assistant, a configured retrieval setup and a custom implementation using the same employee tasks. Ask what can access each source, how answers cite it, how removal propagates and who operates the system. A custom build needs a reason beyond having your own chat screen. A chatbot that answers your customers on your website, shop or messaging channels belongs with AI Chatbot Development. Broader adoption and training belong with AI Enablement; new AI product features belong with AI Development. For the detailed buying decision, compare enterprise assistants and custom RAG and review internal-assistant cost drivers.
A pilot should leave you with an evaluation, not just a chat window
Pick a bounded source collection and a named group of employees. The useful output is evidence about which questions the assistant can answer safely and economically, including the questions it should decline.
A source and access inventory
Record the owner, audience, update frequency and removal rules for each collection. Identify conflicting policy versions and material that should never enter the retrieval index.
A reviewed question set
Use real task types with synthetic or approved examples. Define the expected evidence and what counts as a useful answer before changing prompts or comparing models.
An inspectable answer path
Retain references to retrieved passages, document versions and access decisions for authorized debugging. Review citations against the actual answer, rather than counting links.
A rollout recommendation
Summarize task usefulness, unsupported answers, access failures, response time and recurring cost. Recommend expanding, revising or stopping, with unresolved risks visible.
Treat permissions and freshness as acceptance criteria
Inventory approved documents, identity groups, retention requirements and source owners. Verify access at retrieval and answer time, including revoked access and stale copies. Define refresh and deletion behavior, citations and escalation. Check hosting, subprocessors and model-data terms for the selected configuration; a hosting region alone does not settle those questions.
Illustrative evaluation: test more than easy answers
Use synthetic material and an agreed question set. An authorized policy question should cite the current policy. A question absent from the sources should say that evidence is missing. An outdated policy should not override the current version. A user without access to a document should receive none of its content. These are proposed tests, not a claim that an enterprise assistant is already deployed.
Question classExpected behaviorWhat the reviewer checks
An answer exists in current approved policy
Answer with the relevant supporting source.
The citation actually supports each material statement.
An answer is absent from the collection
Explain the evidence gap and offer the agreed escalation.
No plausible invented policy or fabricated citation.
An obsolete and a current version disagree
Prefer the current authorized version.
Document version and refresh behavior are visible.
The relevant document is not authorized
Return none of its restricted content.
Access is enforced before retrieval and after permission changes.
Decide whether the pilot earned a wider rollout
Agree the evaluation method with the people who own the task. A fluent answer and a short demo are not enough to decide that a source collection is ready for wider access.
Establish a baseline
Have a reviewer complete the same task with the current search or knowledge process. Record correctness and effort so the assistant has a meaningful comparison.
Evaluate the whole answer path
Review retrieval, authorization, citations, missing evidence and hostile source text as separate failure modes. Treat retrieved documents as evidence, not instructions to change access or system behavior.
Choose expand
Expand only when agreed usefulness and access checks hold. Revise source quality or the workflow where needed. A licensed tool or better knowledge management may be the more useful outcome.
Make the pilot a decision point
Define the task, users, sources and acceptance questions; configure or build the bounded path; measure answer usefulness, source accuracy, access failures, time and cost. Expand, revise or stop based on what the pilot shows. Keep implementation separate from model usage, hosting, connectors and ongoing evaluation. Discovery can resolve uncertain scope first. Twinsoft AI shows AI application hardening; it does not prove permission-aware company retrieval.
Check the retrieval boundary before expanding access
Assistant implementation owns the working knowledge workflow. A separate AI security review can examine permission propagation, cross-tenant retrieval, malicious source content and tool actions before you expand the pilot.
// proof
AI application hardening in practice
Twinsoft AI shows AI-product engineering and hardening work. For a knowledge assistant, source access, retrieval quality and evaluation remain explicit requirements of your pilot.
▸These are selected projects, not our full portfolio. We have shipped 100+ products since 2018.
Questions before you start
Potentially, when the material, access rights and selected system support the task. First check whether those documents contain reliable answers and can be kept current.
Use a reviewed evaluation set with answerable, unanswerable, outdated and unauthorized questions. Inspect evidence and abstention as well as whether the answer sounds plausible.
Model usage, hosting, source connectors, document refresh and evaluation may continue. Specify those owners and costs separately from pilot implementation.
Use real employee questions and agree what a supported answer looks like. Check source references, restricted documents and questions the assistant should decline. Compare the effort of finding and checking an answer with the current process before extending access.
More agreed work in the same week, or the same scope sooner, with extra reserved capacity and unchanged quality checks. Miss the booked earlier date and 100% of the Fast Lane surcharge comes back.
Optional per milestone, quoted after a readiness check.
Optional analytics, ad measurement, personalized Google ads, AI chat and embedded media load only with your consent. Privacy policy · How Google uses data
Ask our AI assistant
LeadWin by Feedbax and its AI providers process your messages and technical context, including outside the EEA. AI can make mistakes. Opening social content may also send data to its platform. Please do not share sensitive or confidential information.
