Client Voices
What Institutions Say
After Working With Us
Unscripted accounts from researchers, editors, and curators who have engaged our services over the past two years.
← Back to Home18+
Institutional engagements
3
Years of practice
4.8
Average satisfaction (out of 5)
100%
Engagements with analyst review
Testimonials
From Researchers, Editors, and Curators
Catherine Wu
Senior Research Officer · Central, HK
"The briefing notes started arriving in our researchers' inboxes about three weeks after onboarding began. The format was one we had helped design, so adoption was not an issue. The main change has been that researchers arrive at our weekly reading group having already read a brief on each new paper — rather than half-reading the papers themselves."
March 2025 · Research Archive Summarization
Andrew Yuen
Commissioning Editor · Kowloon, HK
"The pilot phase was well-managed. We ran about forty manuscripts through it before committing to the full service. The reader's reports were consistent with what I would have noted myself in a first pass — which is precisely what we needed. I still write my own assessment before any acquisition decision, but I write it faster and with less mental overhead from the initial read."
February 2025 · Manuscript Review Support
Margaret Tsui
Head of Collections · Sheung Wan, HK
"The ethics review at the beginning was more substantive than I expected. It was not a checklist exercise — it was a working session where we discussed specific objects in our collection, the kinds of questions visitors ask about them, and how we want AI-assisted responses to handle contested interpretations. That conversation shaped how the programme was configured."
April 2025 · Cultural Institution AI Programme
Benjamin Lau
Director of Research · Wan Chai, HK
"We had looked at three other providers before speaking with Ink Stone. The others were offering platforms — we would deploy and manage. Ink Stone offered a managed service with human review built in. That is what we needed. Our team are researchers, not AI operators. The quarterly reviews have also been genuinely useful, not just a courtesy call."
January 2025 · Research Archive Summarization
Eleanor Hung
Acquisitions Editor · Tsim Sha Tsui, HK
"The criteria calibration took longer than I expected — about two full sessions. But that time was well spent. By the end we had documented our acquisition criteria in a form that was more useful to us internally than anything we had written down before. The reader's reports reflect those criteria accurately. My only comment would be that the summaries of very short manuscripts can occasionally feel slightly longer than necessary."
March 2025 · Manuscript Review Support
Raymond Chan
Archive Manager · Kennedy Town, HK
"The catalog enrichment work has made a visible difference to the depth of our online records. We processed a backlog of around four hundred objects in the first two months — descriptive text, thematic tags, readability improvements for the public-facing entries. That would have taken us considerably longer without this arrangement. The team has been responsive and the six-month support period was actively useful, not a formality."
February 2025 · Cultural Institution AI Programme
Case Studies
Three Institutional Journeys
Think Tank · Research Archive Summarization
A Policy Research Centre With a Growing Archive
The Situation
A mid-sized policy research centre with eight full-time researchers was adding twelve to twenty new papers to its archive each week. Researchers were expected to stay across the entire archive. In practice, papers more than three weeks old were rarely read unless a researcher happened to recall them.
What Changed
After four weeks of onboarding, a briefing note began arriving for each new paper within twenty-four hours of archiving. Each brief was reviewed by an analyst before circulation. Researchers reported reading every brief and frequently citing recently archived material in their own work that they would previously have missed.
At Three Months
The director observed that internal discussions had become more cross-referential — researchers were drawing connections across the archive that had not been visible before. The quarterly review in month three resulted in minor template adjustments. The engagement continued and the centre renewed for a further six months.
Academic Press · Manuscript Review Support
A Publisher With a High Volume of Unsolicited Submissions
The Situation
A specialist academic press was receiving over two hundred unsolicited manuscript submissions per year. Two commissioning editors handled all initial assessments. The time required for first reads was reducing the capacity available for editorial development work on commissioned titles.
What Changed
Following a six-week pilot on a sample of forty manuscripts, the full service was deployed. Reader's reports began arriving within forty-eight hours of submission receipt. Editors reported that the reports accurately flagged manuscripts that fell outside the press's criteria — allowing them to redirect their reading time to manuscripts with genuine potential.
At Six Months
The editors estimated that first-read time per submission had fallen by around sixty percent. The time saved was redirected to development editing on contracted manuscripts. No acquisition decisions were attributed to AI output — all decisions remained editorial. The criteria document was updated at the three-month review to improve handling of interdisciplinary submissions.
Heritage Foundation · Cultural Institution AI Programme
A Heritage Foundation Reopening a Digitised Collection
The Situation
A heritage foundation had completed digitisation of approximately six thousand archival objects but lacked the curatorial capacity to enrich catalog records to a standard suitable for public access. Object descriptions were terse, inconsistent, and not easily searchable by members of the public.
What Changed
After the ethics review and curator workshops in the first month, the AI was configured to produce enriched catalog entries for review by the curatorial team. The curators reviewed and amended each entry before publication. Over three months, around two thousand entries were enriched and published — a volume that would have required additional staff otherwise.
At Six Months
The public collection was accessible in a form the foundation's board had approved. Online search queries had increased substantially compared to the same period the previous year. The curators noted that reviewing AI-produced entries had prompted them to revisit and clarify internal standards that had not been formally documented before. The engagement moved into a second phase focused on visitor inquiry handling.
Credentials
Professional Context
HK Knowledge Economy Innovation Awards 2024 — Finalist
Practice members with backgrounds in policy research, academic editing, and heritage curation
ISO 27001 Certification in progress — Q2 2025
Member — Hong Kong Institute of Information Technology Professionals
Would You Like to Discuss Your Institution?
We are happy to speak with any institution that is thinking seriously about AI integration and wants to understand what a considered approach looks like in practice.
Book a Conversation