Comparison
Manual Summarisation vs Ordestra
The question is not speed — generic AI is already fast. The question is whether the output is defensible, consistent, and auditable.
| Dimension | Manual | Generic AI | Ordestra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim discipline | Depends on the author | None — fluent but unconstrained | Study design → claim template (deterministic) |
| Do-not-say enforcement | Manual review | None | 6 banned terms blocked automatically |
| Audit trail | Notes and email threads | None | Immutable record per output |
| Time per paper | 2-3 hours | 2-5 minutes | 2-5 minutes |
| Consistency | Varies by author and day | Varies by prompt | Deterministic constraints, consistent output |
| Compliance badge | Not applicable | Not applicable | 10 checks, per-output badge |
| Iteration cost | Hours per revision | Minutes, but no quality control | Minutes, with automated re-verification |
| Evidence scoring | Expert judgement only | Not available | 6-dimension Confidence Pulse |
When Manual Still Wins
For novel applications, novel study designs, or where institutional nuance matters, human review is irreplaceable. Ordestra does not aim to eliminate human expertise — it produces a structured draft that captures 85-95% of the evidence communication work.
The model is: structured draft + structured review + human refinement. The script editor lets you refine language, adjust emphasis, and add institutional context. Every edit is logged in the audit trail.
The honest position: Ordestra saves time on the 80% of papers where the evidence communication is straightforward. The 20% that require deep domain expertise still need a human — but they get there faster when the structured draft is already done.
3 free credits. No card required.
Generate your first evidence-constrained summary in under two minutes.