Brightbeam Research

Making digital intelligence second nature in regulated work.

Regulated enterprises depend on people whose judgement combines technical knowledge, practical experience and responsibility for the outcome. Integrating AI into that work means capturing what those experts know, understanding when it applies and testing whether the resulting behaviour meets the standards of the task.

Brightbeam’s research supports that integration. We develop open protocols and working tools for capturing expertise, structuring collaboration between people and agents, and making their decisions available for review.

01 / Purpose

Why this matters to Brightbeam

Brightbeam’s mission is to integrate digital intelligence into regulated enterprises so that it becomes second nature. AI should be understood by the people who use it and connected to the systems and responsibilities already in place.

These are environments in which rules, expertise and consequence converge. An operator may recognise a change in a machine before an alarm. A reviewer may need more evidence before accepting a conclusion. Introducing AI means understanding how people make those judgements and keeping responsibility for consequential decisions clear.

02 / Research question

The question we’re investigating

How do we capture, structure and prepare expertise and judgement for AI? That means understanding what an expert noticed, when it matters and what would justify using it in another situation.

An accurate account of a decision still leaves its quality to be assessed. We need to understand what makes the judgement sound, where it might fail and how to recognise the difference. An unsuccessful decision might help expose a mistake in an evaluation, even when it would be unsuitable as advice.

These questions extend to the examples used to train and assess AI. They connect expertise capture to the work of defining what good performance means in a particular organisation.

03 / Connected work

How the work connects

CHAP and Metis are open research initiatives with papers and reference implementations to examine. Alongside them, work on evaluations asks how to assess the judgement reflected in AI behaviour.

CHAP →
The Collaborative Human-Agent Protocol supports collaboration between people and AI agents. It records their interactions and decisions, making it possible to follow how a piece of work was carried out.
Metis →
Metis explores how fragments of expert practice can become agent memory. An account keeps its source and conditions, while human review determines what use it may support. Metis uses CHAP to record the decisions behind it.
Evaluations
This research asks how domain expertise can help assess AI behaviour: what useful judgement looks like in a task, which examples test it and how to recognise consequential mistakes.

Explore a workflow

Bring a workflow to the conversation.

Choose a task where experience affects the decision. With a practitioner and someone responsible for reviewing the work, we can discuss what they notice, how they judge it and where an agent could help. From there, we can identify a specific question to explore and agree what evidence would make the result useful to your organisation.

Discuss your workflow →