Helpful when you need a next step, not a verdict
conscRAG is for the blank page after you have a paper in hand. You know the target. You do not yet have four concrete, cited directions that are not just “do more of the same.” Graph-grounded findings are there to name a problem, a method, and the neighbor papers that suggested them.
That is a narrow job. It helps researchers, students, and builders who already read enough to judge a suggestion. It does not replace a systematic review, a statistics consult, or a lab meeting where someone says the idea will not work.
Places we have seen the four findings earn their keep
Related-work triage. Figure 2 is a short, profile-ranked list plus one reference hop. Use it to decide which PDFs to open this afternoon. Click evidence on a finding to see why a paper was treated as a mechanism to transfer or a limitation to attack.
Supervision and collaboration. A student can drop the paper the group already agreed on and arrive with four sketches, each tied to source titles. The meeting can reject three and refine one. That is faster than a blank “what should we do next?” and still leaves judgment with the humans.
Proposal and thesis scoping. A finding’s problem/method pair is a paragraph you can try to falsify in a day of searching. If the literature already did it, you learned that cheaply. If not, you have a cited starting point for a real outline.
Places findings should not be used
Do not paste a finding into a paper as if it were a result. Do not cite conscRAG as evidence that a method works. Do not use a finding as the sole novelty claim in a grant. Do not treat the graph as a complete map of a medical, legal, or safety-critical literature. The Terms say the same: not professional, legal, or scientific advice.
Do not skip peer review because four bullets appeared on a webpage. Automated idea generation is good at fluency. It is bad at knowing it is wrong.
A practical workflow
Find or paste one paper you already trust. Run once. Read Figure 2 before Figure 1. Open the two or three retrieved works that show up most often in evidence. Only then read the findings. Keep the ones you can explain in your own words. Throw the rest away.
If you sign in, that run stays on your account so you can come back. If you are a guest, copy the share link before the 30-day window ends. Details are in how conscRAG processes a run and whether we save it. The useful part is still the reading you do after the model stops.
Questions
Who is this for?
Researchers, students, and builders who already have a target work and need cited next steps—not a blank page.
What should I not do with a finding?
Do not paste it into a paper as a result, cite conscRAG as evidence a method works, or skip peer review because four bullets appeared on a webpage.