Every candidate item is graded on topical fit, news value and source credibility before it reaches the page, so a digest arrives already sifted.
Back to all proofs
From a hand-filtered news digest to three self-run intelligence systems
Client
Date
$4B+ global medical technology group, acute care business area
09/2026
The challenge
One business area of a $4B+ global medical technology group runs its own market intelligence. A subscription service captured publications across its therapy domains and removed the duplicates, but drew no conclusions, so its intelligence lead spent hours every week scrubbing and selecting before anything could go out.
The solution
FifthRow built three systems for the business area's own intelligence lead and handed him the controls. A topic and a date window, a market and a line of context, or a company name goes in; a filtered digest, an eight-part market assessment or a competitor read comes out, on the same method every time.
4,350
analyst-hours equivalent, 3 FTEs1,534
source-verified research questions answeredMarket intelligence digestFour domains, two source channels each
Adjacent-market readEight analyses per market, one launch
Evidence base1,534 research questions answered
Analyst-hours equivalent4,350 hours saved; equivalent to 3 FTEs
The business area already received a news digest. What it did not receive was a judgement: publications were captured and de-duplicated, and a director then read the pile and cut it by hand. The system was built to do the cutting, and to say why each surviving item matters.
Core Activities
- Covered four therapy domains the business area sells into, through two source channels each
- Scored every candidate item on topical fit, news value and source credibility before it reaches the page
- Applied the reader's own exclusions, including whole content types and segments the business does not compete in
- Attached what each item means for the business, rather than leaving a headline and a link
- Set it up to run for whatever date window the reader chooses, rather than to a fixed cycle
The Results
A digest that arrives already sifted and already interpreted, across the four domains the business area actually sells into, produced by the person who reads it rather than assembled for him.
100+ hours a year
of manual filtering removedDeciding whether to move into an adjacent segment takes eight different reads, and they have to hold together. The assessment was built as one system with two inputs, a market and a line of context, so the whole picture arrives from a single launch and re-points at the next segment.
Core Activities
- Mapped who operates in the market, what equipment they use and how that equipment performs
- Segmented the market on how it actually operates, rather than on how it is usually reported
- Read how incumbents won their positions, and what an entrant would have to do differently
- Added the patent landscape to the market read, so an adjacency is judged on what is being invented as well as what is being sold
- Held the two-input shape, so a second and third segment cost a launch rather than a rebuild
The Results
One consistent read on an adjacent segment covering operators, equipment, segmentation, how competitors succeeded, emerging trends, patents and an entry position, which is what a segment decision is actually argued from.
8 analyses
per market, from a single launchOnce a segment is worth taking seriously the questions narrow to individual companies: who holds share, who is growing, where they operate, and who could be bought or partnered with.
Core Activities
- Profiled an individual competitor on market share, growth position and operating regions
- Accepted several companies at once, so a competitive set is read in one pass
- Ran a separate read on where the market's unmet needs sit and who is positioned against them
- Identified acquisition and partnership candidates inside a segment under evaluation
- Returned the same structure per company, so candidates can be ranked rather than only described
The Results
A company-level position on who matters in a segment and who is worth approaching, built to the same standard as the market read above it, so the two sit inside one argument rather than beside each other.
577
analyst-hours equivalent, competitor and target workWhat it proved
Three systems were built and handed over: a relevance-filtered market digest across four therapy domains, an eight-part adjacent-market assessment driven by two inputs, and a competitor deep-dive that takes several companies at once. Across the engagement that is 166 research studies over 564 analysis steps and 3,738 sources, answering 1,534 research questions from them. Earlier, at group level, portfolio, valuation and partnership questions had gone through the same platform.
The business area's intelligence lead runs all three himself. The two to three hours a week he spent scrubbing and selecting a digest by hand are gone, and what lands in their place carries a relevance score and an implication rather than a headline and a link. Because the market assessment needs only a market and a line of context, a new segment costs a launch rather than a project, and it was re-pointed twice inside the engagement without a rebuild. Across those 166 runs the platform records 4,350 analyst-hours saved, the equivalent of 3 full-time analysts over the period.
Results
| Metric | Benchmark | Result | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digest production | 100+ hours a year of manual scrubbing and selection | Filtered digest run on demand by its own reader | Weekly manual effort removed |
| What the digest carries | Publications captured and de-duplicated, no conclusion | Relevance-scored items with the implication attached | Reading list becomes a decision input |
| Digest cadence | Weekly or fortnightly, set by how much had piled up | Run for any date window the reader chooses | Cadence set by need, not by workload |
| Adjacent-market assessment | A report assembled by hand, one segment at a time | Eight analyses per market from a single launch | Same method re-points at any segment |
| Analyst-hours saved | One lead carrying the business area's intelligence work | 4,350 hours across 166 runs | Equivalent of adding 3 full-time analysts over the period |
What does not belong in a digest is defined by the person who reads it, so filtering reflects where the business competes rather than what the topic covers.
Each item carries what it means for the business, so intelligence lands as a decision input instead of a reading list someone still has to interpret.
A market and a line of context are the only inputs an assessment needs, so a new segment is re-pointed rather than rebuilt.
Patent activity sits inside the market read, so an adjacent segment is judged on what is being invented as well as on what is already selling.
The systems are run by the person who needs the answer, so a new segment or a new date window costs a launch rather than a request and a wait.
From a six-step manual drug lookup to a single automated research run
Client
€2B+ global pharma and cosmetics packaging group
Date
08/2026
7,212
analyst-hours equivalentFrom days of invention assessment to decision-ready reviews in hours
Client
Leading US research university TTO
Date
08/2026
50%+
less time per invention assessmentFor Enterprises
ProofSee all
From a standing start to an AI venture serving small businesses
From 72 patents to 4 commercialisation-ready technologies
Cutting a four-month research cycle to six weeks across five validation workstreams
From a weekly newsletter to a self-running innovation radar
A full year's validated-concept target, met in the first quarter
A utility innovation lab that answers its own questions in a day
Finding the next high-growth US metro in five days
FifthRow – The Agentic Consultancy
Copyright 2026 FifthRow Inc., Privacy policy