This is an example of an agent you can build with Sylvie: a White Paper agent that takes a thesis, a research pile or a client's point of view and drafts the full document, executive summary, problem framing, an argument that builds section by section, the evidence with its citations, methodology where it belongs, and a conclusion that gives a serious reader somewhere to go. It drafts on your brand brain, so the argument follows this brand's real position, every claim traces to something you can stand behind, and it knows what your earlier papers already said. Sylvie does not ship this agent pre-built: your team assembles it once, and it writes on that memory from then on.
Sylvie does not ship this agent pre-built. It is an example of an agent your team can build with Sylvie, powered by your brand brain, so it runs your workflow the way you actually run it.
The White Paper agent is one of the agents a marketing team or agency can build with Sylvie, not a finished product we deliver. It writes long form, evidence led documents for buying committees: the executive summary a busy sponsor reads first, the problem framed in the market's own language, an argument where each section earns the next, the data and citations behind every claim, the counter-argument addressed instead of avoided, and a conclusion with a next step.
For B2B teams the white paper is the asset with the highest stakes and the longest stall. It has to be credible to a CTO, a clinician or a procurement committee, which means it cannot read like content marketing, and that is precisely why it waits a quarter for a subject matter expert who never has a free afternoon. An agent built on your brand brain drafts from the expertise your organisation has already captured, so the expert edits a serious document in an hour rather than starting one from nothing.
Before it writes a line, the agent reads the brand brain: the position this brand argues from, the product facts and performance claims it is cleared to publish, the research, customer data and expert interviews you have captured, the citation and legal standards your review process enforces, the buying committee this paper is written for, and the papers you have already published so it extends the argument rather than repeating it. Because the brain is permission-aware, it only uses what this brand or client has approved for external use.
Then it drafts end to end inside Sylvie: it locks the thesis, structures the argument so each section builds on the last, writes at the register a technical audience expects, places each piece of evidence with its source attached, handles the objection a skeptical reader will raise, and closes with a conclusion and a next step. Every claim comes back linked to where in the brain it came from, so your expert and your legal reviewer check sources instead of hunting for them, and the corrections they make teach the brain for the next paper.
Every claim comes back attached to where it came from in the brand brain, so review means checking citations rather than interrogating each sentence to find out whether it is true.
It holds the register a CTO, a clinician or a procurement lead expects, so the paper reads as expertise instead of a blog post in a PDF wrapper, and sales is willing to put their name on the send.
Your subject matter expert reviews a serious draft built from knowledge already in the brain, which turns the usual three-week wait for their calendar into an hour of corrections.
The agent argues only from facts and performance data this brand is cleared to publish, so the compliance pass stops being the stage where half the paper gets rewritten.
It answers the counter-argument a skeptical buyer will raise instead of pretending it does not exist, which is what makes a paper credible to the committee and not only to the marketer who commissioned it.
Because the brain holds everything you have published, each paper extends the last one's argument rather than restating it, so a run of papers becomes a position the market recognises.
A few of the papers teams build this agent to draft, each argued from the brand brain rather than assembled from a dozen open tabs. The outcome repeats: a credible, sourced draft an expert can edit in an hour and a sales team is happy to send.
A client wants to plant a flag on a new category before a competitor gets there. The agent drafts the argument from the brand's own point of view, data and customer evidence, so the paper reads as a considered position rather than a vendor pitch, and sales finally has something that opens a conversation.
A technical white paper has sat in the queue for a quarter because the one person who can write it bills by the hour. The agent drafts it from the interviews, documentation and product facts already in the brain, so the expert spends an hour correcting instead of three weekends writing, and the asset ships this month.
You have survey results or platform data worth publishing. The agent builds the paper around the findings, writing the methodology, the commentary on each chart and the implications for the reader, so the numbers become an argument analysts and journalists will cite rather than a deck nobody outside the company opens.
An enterprise deal stalls because the committee wants documented substantiation. The agent produces a paper covering architecture, security posture and proven outcomes with every claim sourced, so the deal team answers with one document instead of assembling ten emails and a call.
A healthcare or financial services client needs a paper that survives compliance review. The agent writes only from the claims and language the brain marks as approved and cites each one, so legal returns notes rather than a rewrite and the publication date holds.
A webinar, a nurture sequence, paid ads and sales outreach all point at one gated asset. The agent drafts the paper with its argument segmented so each section feeds a downstream piece, so the campaign has a spine and the team can build around it while the PDF is still in review.
You build it. Sylvie does not hand over a finished White Paper agent; this is an example of what a team assembles on the platform. You wire it to your brand brain and set the standards it has to meet (citation style, claim rules, length, audience), so what you end up with is your paper-writing process rather than a generic template.
The agent argues from your brand brain, not from whatever a general model happens to recall, and it returns every claim linked to its source: your research, your product documentation, your customer data, the external references you have approved. Your reviewer follows the link. Anything the brain cannot support is flagged rather than smoothed over.
It writes at the level your brain holds. When the technical documentation, the research and the expert interviews live in there, the agent can argue at that depth and in the register your buyers expect. That is the difference between an agent built on your organisation's knowledge and a general writing tool guessing at your field.
At review, not at the blank page. The expert's knowledge goes into the brain once, through interviews, notes, past documents and corrections on a draft, and the agent writes from it every time after that. Each correction is captured, so the next paper takes less of their calendar rather than the same amount.
Yes, which is why each brand gets its own brain. The brains are isolated and permission-aware, so the agent argues a security vendor's position in one and an insurer's in another with no bleed between them, and people only reach the brains they are cleared to see.
You set that. The agent plans and drafts anything from an eight-page point of view to a thirty-page technical paper with methodology and appendix, in the structure your team publishes in, because those format rules live in the brand brain alongside everything else. Change the standard once and every future paper follows it.
Book a demo and we will map the workflows worth turning into agents, and show how each one runs on your brand brain.
Request a demo