Use cases
This page describes two ways people use Weavu today. Both are analysts and researchers working from public or assigned sources, reading in the browser or in PDFs, and turning weeks of scattered notes into a draft they can hand over and defend.
A competitive scan in a week of spare hours.
An analyst assembling a competitive or technology scan works mostly from public sources: regulatory filings, earnings call transcripts, product documentation, press coverage. None of it lives in one place, and the useful parts are scattered through it, a paragraph buried in a filing, an offhand line on an earnings call, a claim on a competitor's product page that needs checking against something else.
Weavu keeps the reading where the sources already are. A filing stays open in the browser tab it was found in, a transcript stays open as a PDF, and highlights and margin notes go down without breaking either. A figure that looks off gets flagged in place. A claim worth checking gets a note beside it. None of it requires opening a separate document, deciding on a folder, or breaking off to write anything up.
When a term or a claim needs more than a glance, the analyst asks Weavu without leaving the page: explain this acronym, check this figure against public data, find who else has made this claim. The request runs alongside the reading, and the result (the explanation, the check, the source it turned up) is filed next to the note that triggered it, not left open in another tab to be reconciled later.
After a few days away (other work, a client call, a weekend) the analyst returns to find the notes already consolidated into a capsule — the living draft Weavu maintains from the notes and highlights captured along the way. Points are grouped by theme, and the figure that looked off now sits next to the transcript passage that explained it.
From there the work is steering, not writing from scratch. The analyst reorders sections around the decision question (is the competitor's roadmap credible, is the valuation defensible), cuts a thread that turned out not to matter, and tightens a few sentences so the argument reads cleanly. None of that requires rebuilding the draft; the underlying notes and their sources stay attached through every change.
When a colleague pushes back on a claim in review, the answer is one click away. Every line in the capsule traces back to the source passage and the note that produced it, whichever filing, call, or page it came from. Nothing has to be reconstructed from memory, and nothing has to be taken on faith.
If your next scan looks like this, ask for a seat: join the beta waitlist.
A literature review that stays reviewable.
A researcher working through a stack of papers for a literature review spends most of the time reading PDFs: dense methods sections, results tables, a related-work paragraph that quietly contradicts the paper open in the next tab. The review itself does not get written until all of that reading is done, or at least that is how it usually goes.
With Weavu, the annotating happens directly on the papers. A highlight on a claim, a margin note on a method, a flag on a figure that does not match the text around it, all of it sits on the document itself, anchored to the exact passage it came from. There is no separate notes file to keep in sync with what has been read.
When a passage is dense, the researcher asks Weavu to explain it without leaving the page: what does this method assume, what does this notation mean, has this result been reproduced elsewhere. The explanation comes back attached to the passage that prompted it, so the context is never lost the way it would be in a separate search tab.
Six weeks of reading like this adds up to a lot of scattered material across a lot of papers, and none of it goes missing. A highlight made in the second week is still there, still attached to its source, when it turns out to matter in the sixth. The researcher does not have to remember where they saw something; Weavu keeps it findable.
Underneath all of it, a related-work section has been growing alongside the reading. Weavu consolidates the highlights and notes into a capsule, a living draft that groups claims by theme and attaches each one to the paper and passage it came from. A claim in the draft is never just asserted; it carries its citation with it, ready to check.
The researcher's job is to steer that draft, not rewrite it. Passages get reordered as the argument takes shape, weak citations get swapped for stronger ones, a paragraph that overstates a finding gets tightened to what the source actually supports. The result is a review that stays reviewable: every claim can be traced back to the paper and the passage that grounds it, whenever a supervisor or a reader wants to check.
If your next literature review looks like this, ask for a seat: join the beta waitlist.