AI Knowledge Base Assistant | Australia

Australian professional services firms and SaaS companies where Confluence, Notion, or SharePoint contain the company's documented processes but staff search them manually rather than asking an AI assistant that reads them automatically, where customer-facing teams spend time finding answers to client questions by digging through product documentation, and where new employee onboarding requires a buddy system because self-service knowledge retrieval is not reliable enough

Ignited Nepal builds AI knowledge base assistants for Australian businesses that connect to Confluence, Notion, SharePoint, and Google Workspace so customer-facing staff answer client questions in seconds and new hires find procedural answers without interrupting a colleague.

Request a AI Knowledge Base Assistant Diagnostic → View the evidence →
This is for you if

Who This Is For

In Australian B2B SaaS companies, the customer support function is the primary test of whether the company's internal documentation is actually usable under operational conditions. Support agents handle ten to twenty tickets per day, each requiring accurate, specific knowledge about product behaviour, billing policies, integration procedures, and exception handling. The documentation for all of these exists in Confluence, in Zendesk macros, in product wikis, and in knowledge base articles. But the process of retrieving the right answer for the specific question in a specific ticket takes three to five minutes of manual searching, and the quality of the answer depends on whether the agent finds the most current document and the most relevant section within it. At three to five minutes per question and ten questions per agent per day, a ten-person support team is spending three hundred to five hundred minutes per day on information retrieval. That is five to eight hours per day of support team capacity consumed by searching rather than resolving. An AI knowledge base assistant that connects to the same Confluence, Zendesk, and product documentation sources returns the answer to the same question in ten to fifteen seconds, with a reference to the source document so the agent can cite it to the client or escalate to a technical review if the answer requires verification. The hours recovered go back into ticket volume, customer satisfaction, and the kind of complex problem-solving that requires a human.

Australian accounting, consulting, and legal firms operate on billable hours, which means every minute a fee earner spends searching SharePoint or Confluence for a procedural document or compliance template is a minute that is not billable to a client. The internal information retrieval problem in professional services is not just a productivity issue: it is a direct revenue impact. A senior consultant who spends twenty minutes per day searching for engagement management guides, compliance procedure references, and fee structure documentation is losing approximately one hundred minutes of billable time per week, every week, to a problem that a well-configured AI assistant could eliminate. The compounding factor in professional services is that the documentation these firms maintain is often highly technical, frequently updated, and subject to regulatory change. A tax consultant searching for the current procedure for a specific ATO submission requirement needs to find not just any document on that topic but the current version with the most recent regulatory reference. SharePoint and Confluence search do not reliably surface the most current document over older versions. An AI knowledge base assistant configured with document versioning awareness and a regular sync schedule returns answers based on the current state of the documentation, with a date-stamped source reference so the fee earner can verify currency before relying on the answer in a client context.

Australian construction and project management companies operate with documentation that is physically distributed: contract specifications, safety procedures, project schedules, and compliance documentation are referenced on site, in site offices, on mobile devices, and in main office systems simultaneously. A project manager on site who needs to reference a specific contract clause, check a safety procedure before signing off on a task, or confirm a project specification detail currently has to either remember the answer, call someone in the main office, or return to a file server they cannot access from the site network. Each of these options introduces delay, risk, or dependency on another person's availability. An AI knowledge base assistant deployed as a mobile-accessible web interface gives site-based project managers a way to ask questions about project documentation and receive source-referenced answers from wherever they are working. The assistant connects to the project's contract documents, safety procedure manuals, and specification files, and responds to natural language questions with the relevant content extracted and presented directly. The project manager does not need to remember folder structures or document naming conventions. They ask the question, get the answer, and continue working. For construction companies managing multiple simultaneous projects with overlapping documentation sets, the assistant can be configured with project-scoped retrieval so that a question about a specific project returns answers from that project's documentation only.

Australian NDIS and disability services providers operate under a regulatory framework that requires consistent, accurate adherence to participant care plans, service agreements, and compliance procedures. Support workers and care coordinators in the field need quick access to participant-specific documentation and organisational procedure manuals during service delivery, often in environments where calling a supervisor or returning to the office is not practical. The consequence of a support worker acting on outdated or incorrectly recalled procedural information is not just an operational error: it is a compliance risk that can affect the provider's NDIS registration and the participant's safety. An AI knowledge base assistant for an NDIS provider connects to the organisation's procedure manuals, compliance documentation, and participant care plan summaries, and allows support workers to ask questions and receive accurate, source-referenced answers during service delivery. The assistant is configured with appropriate access controls so that support workers can access the procedural documentation relevant to their role and the participants they support, without accessing sensitive participant information outside their direct care responsibilities. This configuration supports the provider's compliance obligations under the NDIS Practice Standards and the Australian Privacy Act 1988, which governs how participant information is processed and accessed.

What's broken

What's Broken

Customer support agents search Confluence and product documentation manually to answer client tickets

Three to five minutes per answer may not sound significant when considered as a single instance. The problem becomes visible when it is calculated across a support team and a working week. A ten-person support team handling ten questions per agent per day that each require a Confluence or product documentation search is generating one thousand manual searches per week. At an average of four minutes per search, that is four thousand minutes, approximately sixty-seven hours of team capacity consumed by information retrieval every single week. This is not a staffing problem that can be solved by hiring more support agents. Each additional agent adds proportionally to the retrieval burden. The only structural fix is a retrieval system that answers questions faster than manual search. The quality dimension compounds the capacity problem. Manual search quality varies by agent experience. A senior support agent who has been with the company for three years knows where the refund policy document is and which section covers annual subscriptions. A new agent hired six months ago does not have that contextual knowledge, takes longer to find the right document, and has a higher probability of citing the wrong version or the wrong section. Answer quality therefore varies across the team in a way that creates inconsistent client experience and periodic escalations when an agent provides an incorrect response. An AI knowledge base assistant trained on the current state of the documentation returns the same quality of answer regardless of which agent is asking the question and regardless of how long they have been with the company.

Confluence or SharePoint search returns keyword matches rather than answers

The architectural gap between a keyword search and a question-answering system is not a minor usability difference. It is the difference between a system that helps you find a document and a system that answers your question. When a customer support agent types "what is the process for issuing a partial refund after 90 days for an annual subscription customer" into Confluence search, the system returns documents that contain the words "partial," "refund," "90 days," and "annual subscription." The agent then has to open each document, scan for the relevant section, determine whether the document is current, and extract the answer. This is the entire problem in a single interaction: the documentation exists, the search finds documents that contain the relevant words, but the actual answer is still not returned. This limitation affects every category of staff that uses the documentation system. HR managers searching for a policy detail, IT staff looking for a procedure, sales teams retrieving product comparison data, and finance teams looking up billing procedure references all face the same architectural gap. The documentation is written, reviewed, approved, and stored in Confluence or SharePoint. The investment in creating it was substantial. But the return on that investment is capped by a search function that has not changed in fundamental capability for fifteen years. RAG-based AI knowledge base assistants replace the keyword search layer with a semantic retrieval layer that understands the intent of the question and returns the section of documentation that answers it, not a list of documents that mention the keywords.

New employee onboarding buddy system is informal and inconsistent

The buddy system that most Australian companies use for new employee onboarding in the first sixty days is a reasonable response to an information retrieval problem that has no other solution. Without a reliable self-service way to answer procedural questions, the new hire's only option is to ask a colleague. The buddy is designated to reduce the randomness of that asking, giving the new hire a consistent point of contact and reducing the interruption spread across the team. But the buddy system has significant limitations. The buddy's own productivity is reduced during the onboarding period. The quality and consistency of answers depends on the buddy's knowledge and communication style. If the buddy leaves the company or changes roles, the new hire's primary knowledge source disappears. More fundamentally, the buddy system treats a documentation retrieval problem as a human relationship problem. The new hire does not need more access to colleagues. They need access to accurate answers about how the organisation works, what the processes are, and where to find what they need. In the first sixty days, the volume of these questions is high and the stakes of incorrect answers are significant: a new fee earner at a consulting firm who bills incorrectly in their first month, a new support agent who applies the wrong refund policy in their first week, or a new project manager who follows a deprecated procedure in their first project all create problems that the buddy system was supposed to prevent but could not, because the buddy system is not a documentation retrieval system. An AI knowledge base assistant that covers the question surface of the first sixty days of onboarding gives new hires a reliable, consistent, source-referenced self-service resource that does not depend on a colleague's availability or knowledge.

Australian Privacy Act 1988 compliance for AI assistants accessing staff or client data in SharePoint has not been assessed

When an AI knowledge base assistant is configured to access SharePoint, Confluence, or Google Workspace, it creates a data flow from those systems to an external AI platform for the purpose of indexing, retrieval, and response generation. Under the Australian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), this data flow constitutes a processing activity that may engage APP 8 (cross-border disclosure of personal information) if the AI platform vendor is based outside Australia, APP 11 (security of personal information) if the documents being indexed contain personal information about employees or clients, and APP 1 (open and transparent management of personal information) if the processing activity has not been disclosed in the organisation's privacy policy. Many Australian businesses deploying AI knowledge base assistants have not conducted a formal Privacy Act assessment of the data flows involved. This is not a reason to avoid deploying the system: most well-configured knowledge base assistants can be structured to exclude personal information from the indexing pipeline, and the privacy implications of indexing procedural SOPs that contain no personal information are minimal. But for businesses whose SharePoint or Confluence systems contain client files, employee records, or other personal information, the compliance assessment is a necessary step before deployment rather than an afterthought. Ignited Nepal includes a data flow review in the diagnostic phase for all Australian engagements, identifying which data sources contain personal information and how the indexing pipeline should be configured to comply with the Privacy Act.

What we engineer

What We Do

Custom retrieval systems built on existing documentation infrastructure

Ignited Nepal builds AI knowledge base assistants for Australian businesses as custom-configured retrieval systems built on the documentation infrastructure the client already has. We do not require Australian clients to change their documentation platform, move their content to a new system, or adopt a proprietary knowledge management tool. The assistant connects to Confluence, Notion, SharePoint, Google Workspace, Zendesk, and Intercom through their respective APIs and indexes the content in place, without requiring a migration or a platform change.

RAG architecture with data residency configuration

The technical architecture we use is retrieval augmented generation (RAG) deployed on the Claude API or GPT-4, depending on the client's security requirements and data residency preferences. For Australian clients with strict data residency requirements, we configure the deployment to use AI platform services with Australian data processing options and review the cross-border disclosure implications under APP 8 before any data is processed. The RAG system converts documentation into a vector index, a searchable representation of meaning rather than keywords, so that questions asked in natural language are matched to the most semantically relevant sections of documentation rather than keyword-matched document titles.

Support team copilot configuration

For Australian B2B SaaS clients, the most common configuration connects the AI assistant to Confluence as the primary knowledge source, Zendesk ticket data as a secondary source for identifying frequently asked questions and their resolutions, and product documentation as a tertiary source for technical detail. The assistant is typically deployed as a Slack bot for internal staff use, or as an agent copilot interface within the Zendesk or Intercom support workflow, so that support agents receive AI-generated answer suggestions directly within the ticket interface rather than switching to a separate tool. This reduces the context-switching cost of the retrieval process and keeps the agent's focus on the client interaction.

Version-aware retrieval for professional services

For Australian professional services firms, the configuration prioritises SharePoint or Confluence as the primary knowledge source, with document versioning awareness so that the assistant returns answers from the most current version of a document rather than historical versions. We configure the retrieval system with metadata filters that allow the assistant to distinguish between current policy documents, archived versions, and draft documents in preparation, ensuring that fee earners receive answers based on the current approved documentation rather than a superseded version that happens to contain the same keywords. Regular synchronisation intervals ensure that when documentation is updated, the knowledge base reflects the change within a defined refresh window.

Privacy Act compliance built into the engagement

Privacy Act compliance is built into the Australian engagement process rather than treated as an optional add-on. During the documentation audit phase, we identify which data sources contain personal information as defined under the Privacy Act 1988, and we configure the indexing pipeline to exclude personal information where the knowledge base purpose does not require it. For NDIS providers and other Australian businesses where the knowledge base necessarily includes participant or client information, we design access controls that restrict retrieval to staff with an appropriate purpose for accessing that information, and we review the cross-border disclosure implications of the AI platform vendor arrangement before deployment.

Request a AI Knowledge Base Assistant Diagnostic →
What changes

What Changes

Before
After
Before Three to five minutes per answer may not sound significant when considered as a single instance. The problem becomes visible when it is calculated across a support team and a working week. A ten-person support team handling ten questions per agent per day that each require a Confluence or product documentation search is generating one thousand manual searches per week. At an average of four minutes per search, that is four thousand minutes, approximately sixty-seven hours of team capacity consumed by information retrieval every single week. This is not a staffing problem that can be solved by hiring more support agents. Each additional agent adds proportionally to the retrieval burden. The only structural fix is a retrieval system that answers questions faster than manual search. The quality dimension compounds the capacity problem. Manual search quality varies by agent experience. A senior support agent who has been with the company for three years knows where the refund policy document is and which section covers annual subscriptions. A new agent hired six months ago does not have that contextual knowledge, takes longer to find the right document, and has a higher probability of citing the wrong version or the wrong section. Answer quality therefore varies across the team in a way that creates inconsistent client experience and periodic escalations when an agent provides an incorrect response. An AI knowledge base assistant trained on the current state of the documentation returns the same quality of answer regardless of which agent is asking the question and regardless of how long they have been with the company.
After Customer support agents answer client questions in ten to fifteen seconds rather than three to five minutes, because the AI assistant retrieves the answer from Confluence or product documentation directly within the ticket workflow.
Before The architectural gap between a keyword search and a question-answering system is not a minor usability difference. It is the difference between a system that helps you find a document and a system that answers your question. When a customer support agent types "what is the process for issuing a partial refund after 90 days for an annual subscription customer" into Confluence search, the system returns documents that contain the words "partial," "refund," "90 days," and "annual subscription." The agent then has to open each document, scan for the relevant section, determine whether the document is current, and extract the answer. This is the entire problem in a single interaction: the documentation exists, the search finds documents that contain the relevant words, but the actual answer is still not returned. This limitation affects every category of staff that uses the documentation system. HR managers searching for a policy detail, IT staff looking for a procedure, sales teams retrieving product comparison data, and finance teams looking up billing procedure references all face the same architectural gap. The documentation is written, reviewed, approved, and stored in Confluence or SharePoint. The investment in creating it was substantial. But the return on that investment is capped by a search function that has not changed in fundamental capability for fifteen years. RAG-based AI knowledge base assistants replace the keyword search layer with a semantic retrieval layer that understands the intent of the question and returns the section of documentation that answers it, not a list of documents that mention the keywords.
After Answer quality becomes consistent across the support team regardless of agent experience level, because every agent is drawing on the same AI-retrieved answer from the same current documentation.
Before The buddy system that most Australian companies use for new employee onboarding in the first sixty days is a reasonable response to an information retrieval problem that has no other solution. Without a reliable self-service way to answer procedural questions, the new hire's only option is to ask a colleague. The buddy is designated to reduce the randomness of that asking, giving the new hire a consistent point of contact and reducing the interruption spread across the team. But the buddy system has significant limitations. The buddy's own productivity is reduced during the onboarding period. The quality and consistency of answers depends on the buddy's knowledge and communication style. If the buddy leaves the company or changes roles, the new hire's primary knowledge source disappears. More fundamentally, the buddy system treats a documentation retrieval problem as a human relationship problem. The new hire does not need more access to colleagues. They need access to accurate answers about how the organisation works, what the processes are, and where to find what they need. In the first sixty days, the volume of these questions is high and the stakes of incorrect answers are significant: a new fee earner at a consulting firm who bills incorrectly in their first month, a new support agent who applies the wrong refund policy in their first week, or a new project manager who follows a deprecated procedure in their first project all create problems that the buddy system was supposed to prevent but could not, because the buddy system is not a documentation retrieval system. An AI knowledge base assistant that covers the question surface of the first sixty days of onboarding gives new hires a reliable, consistent, source-referenced self-service resource that does not depend on a colleague's availability or knowledge.
After Fee earners in professional services firms recover non-billable time previously spent searching SharePoint or Confluence for procedural documentation, compliance templates, and engagement management guides.
Before When an AI knowledge base assistant is configured to access SharePoint, Confluence, or Google Workspace, it creates a data flow from those systems to an external AI platform for the purpose of indexing, retrieval, and response generation. Under the Australian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), this data flow constitutes a processing activity that may engage APP 8 (cross-border disclosure of personal information) if the AI platform vendor is based outside Australia, APP 11 (security of personal information) if the documents being indexed contain personal information about employees or clients, and APP 1 (open and transparent management of personal information) if the processing activity has not been disclosed in the organisation's privacy policy. Many Australian businesses deploying AI knowledge base assistants have not conducted a formal Privacy Act assessment of the data flows involved. This is not a reason to avoid deploying the system: most well-configured knowledge base assistants can be structured to exclude personal information from the indexing pipeline, and the privacy implications of indexing procedural SOPs that contain no personal information are minimal. But for businesses whose SharePoint or Confluence systems contain client files, employee records, or other personal information, the compliance assessment is a necessary step before deployment rather than an afterthought. Ignited Nepal includes a data flow review in the diagnostic phase for all Australian engagements, identifying which data sources contain personal information and how the indexing pipeline should be configured to comply with the Privacy Act.
After New employees reach independent productivity in the first thirty days faster, because procedural questions that previously required a buddy or manager are answered by the assistant with a source reference they can verify.
How it works

Process

  1. 01

    Documentation Audit and Source Mapping

    We begin by mapping your documentation infrastructure: the Confluence spaces and page hierarchies, the SharePoint sites and document libraries, the Notion workspaces, and any Zendesk or Intercom knowledge base content that is relevant to the knowledge base. We assess each source for volume, structure, currency, and the presence of personal information that would trigger Privacy Act 1988 considerations. The output is a source map that tells us exactly what the knowledge base will be built from, in what priority order, and with what compliance considerations addressed at the architecture stage.

  2. 02

    Support and Staff Question Inventory

    We conduct a question inventory with the client, working with the support team lead, an HR representative, and a senior operational staff member to identify the twenty to thirty question categories that are asked most frequently and that the knowledge base should answer at launch. For support teams, this typically includes product behaviour questions, billing and refund procedure questions, and integration and setup questions. For internal staff, it includes HR policy questions, IT procedure questions, and role-specific process questions. This inventory becomes the test set for the retrieval quality assessment in Step 4.

  3. 03

    Knowledge Base Architecture, Privacy Assessment, and Source Integration

    We design the knowledge base architecture, configure the data flows, and conduct the Privacy Act 1988 data flow review for the specific data sources and AI platform vendor involved in the deployment. We configure API connections to Confluence, SharePoint, or Notion, set up the document processing pipeline with version-awareness filters, establish the synchronisation schedule, and build the vector index. For Zendesk or Intercom integrations, we configure the ticket data pipeline and the agent copilot interface within the support workflow. Privacy Act compliance measures are implemented in the indexing pipeline before any data is processed.

  4. 04

    Retrieval Testing and Accuracy Calibration

    We test the knowledge base against the full question inventory before deployment. Each question is run through the retrieval system, and the answer returned is assessed for accuracy, source currency, and appropriateness for the staff member's use context. Where answers are inaccurate, incomplete, or based on outdated documentation, we trace the issue to the source and resolve it before the system is deployed to staff. This step frequently surfaces documentation quality issues that the client was not aware of, and we provide a prioritised list of documentation updates to be addressed before or shortly after launch.

  5. 05

    Interface Deployment and Staff Orientation

    We deploy the assistant interface in the format appropriate for the client's workflow: a Slack bot for internal staff use, an agent copilot widget within the Zendesk or Intercom interface for support teams, or a web-based chat widget for broader staff access. We configure the feedback mechanism for flagging incorrect answers and set up the usage monitoring dashboard. We provide a brief orientation for the staff groups most likely to use the assistant in the first week, covering effective question phrasing and the process for reporting answers that need to be reviewed.

  6. 06

    Usage Monitoring, Gap Reporting, and Documentation Update Cycle

    After deployment, we provide monthly reporting on which question categories are most frequently asked, which are returning low-confidence responses, and which are generating no answer (indicating a documentation gap). This reporting drives a documentation update cycle: the client's documentation owners review and update the identified gap areas, and the knowledge base is re-indexed to reflect the changes. Over the first three to six months of operation, the coverage and accuracy of the knowledge base improves as the gap reporting cycle identifies and fills the documentation areas that actual usage reveals to be insufficient.

Request a AI Knowledge Base Assistant Diagnostic →
Common questions

FAQ

How do I build an AI assistant that searches Confluence or SharePoint and answers staff questions accurately?

Building an accurate AI assistant on Confluence or SharePoint requires a RAG (retrieval augmented generation) architecture that connects to your documentation via API, processes the content into a vector index, and retrieves the most semantically relevant sections in response to natural language questions. The connection to Confluence uses the Confluence Cloud REST API or the Confluence Data Center API depending on your deployment. The connection to SharePoint uses the Microsoft Graph API. Accuracy depends on two things beyond the technical configuration: the quality and currency of the underlying documentation, and a retrieval testing phase that validates answers against a real question set before the assistant is deployed to staff. We run that testing phase as a defined step in every engagement, and we surface documentation quality issues before deployment rather than after.

What is the difference between Confluence search and an AI knowledge base assistant for an Australian business?

Confluence search returns a ranked list of documents that contain the keywords in your query. An AI knowledge base assistant returns a direct answer to your question, extracted from the most relevant section of the most relevant document, with a link to that source. The practical difference for a support agent or fee earner is the difference between spending three to five minutes reading three documents to find the answer and receiving the answer in ten to fifteen seconds within their existing workflow. For Australian businesses that have invested significantly in Confluence documentation, the AI assistant is a retrieval upgrade that makes the existing documentation investment return its full value rather than a replacement for Confluence as a documentation platform.

How do I connect Zendesk ticket data to an AI assistant so customer support agents get faster answers?

Connecting Zendesk to an AI knowledge base assistant involves two distinct data sources: the Zendesk Help Center articles (customer-facing and internal knowledge base articles), and the historical ticket data including agent responses. Help Center articles are indexed via the Zendesk REST API as a primary knowledge source. Historical ticket data can be processed to extract high-quality question-answer pairs that augment the knowledge base with response patterns that have already been validated by experienced agents. The assistant is then deployed within the Zendesk agent workspace as a sidebar copilot that surfaces answer suggestions as the agent reads the incoming ticket, so the retrieval happens automatically rather than requiring the agent to run a separate search.

Does using an AI knowledge base assistant that accesses SharePoint data require a Privacy Act 1988 compliance review?

Yes. When an AI knowledge base assistant indexes SharePoint data, it creates a data flow from SharePoint to an AI platform vendor, and if that vendor processes data outside Australia, it constitutes a cross-border disclosure that engages APP 8 of the Australian Privacy Principles. Whether a formal Privacy Impact Assessment is required depends on the nature of the data being indexed: if the SharePoint content being indexed is limited to procedural SOPs and process guides that contain no personal information, the privacy implications are minimal. If the SharePoint environment includes employee records, client files, or other personal information, the compliance assessment is necessary before indexing begins. We conduct a data flow review as part of the diagnostic phase for all Australian engagements to identify which sources require compliance measures before indexing is configured.

How do I prevent an AI knowledge base assistant from returning outdated answers when documentation is updated?

Preventing outdated answers requires a synchronisation schedule that keeps the knowledge base index current with the documentation source, and a document versioning configuration that ensures the assistant retrieves from the current approved version rather than archived or draft versions. We configure a synchronisation interval appropriate to the update frequency of the client's documentation: for knowledge bases that are updated daily, a daily sync is configured. For less frequently updated documentation, a weekly sync is sufficient. Beyond synchronisation, we implement a feedback mechanism that allows staff to flag answers that appear to be based on outdated information, which triggers a manual review of the relevant document section and an out-of-cycle re-index if needed.

Our team

The people behind the work

Not a black box. Real specialists you can call, with their names on the work.

Niraj Raut

Niraj Raut

Founder — Ecommerce SEO
Keshab Joshi

Keshab Joshi

PPC Expert
Hawrry Bhattarai

Hawrry Bhattarai

Google Ads Expert
Arogya Rijal

Arogya Rijal

SaaS SEO Expert
About Us →
Start here

Find out how much your Confluence or SharePoint investment is actually returning in staff productivity

Australian businesses have built detailed documentation systems. The gap is not in the documentation. It is in the retrieval layer that sits between the documentation and the staff member who needs an answer. The AI knowledge base assistant diagnostic maps that gap for your specific environment: which sources you have, which question categories they cover, which documentation areas need updating before a knowledge base assistant can answer accurately, and what a deployment would look like for your team size and workflow. The diagnostic takes one to two working days and produces a clear picture of your documentation inventory, your Privacy Act data flow considerations, and the expected retrieval coverage at launch. It does not commit you to a build. If the finding is that your Confluence documentation is too fragmented or outdated to support a reliable knowledge base assistant, we will tell you that and give you a prioritised documentation improvement plan first. If the finding is that your documentation is ready and a deployment would immediately recover hours of support team capacity per week, we will show you exactly how.

Request a AI Knowledge Base Assistant Diagnostic →