> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/analyse/quick-analyse.md).

# Quick Analyse

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Analyse**.

A short guide for the analyst writing an assessment and the independent person reviewing it.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Reviewer.\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/analyse`.\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=quick-analyse`.

**Expected result:** An analytical draft explains its evidence and uncertainty, then receives a separate peer review.

## Before you start

* Use the intended workspace and a visible requirement. The analyst needs Analyse write and access to the evidence; the reviewer needs separate review access.
* Have the question, relevant retained evidence and at least one plausible alternative ready.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

### Find or start the work

Open Analyse. Use Find workspaces to apply a search or review-state filter.

If this is new work, click Create workspace, select the requirement and enter the title, analytical question and context.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Save a draft

Click Create draft with basics if the rest is not ready yet. Otherwise use Continue through the guided steps and Save analytical draft.

Check the saved revision; a basic draft is a starting point, not a finished assessment.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Build the reasoning

Open the saved workspace and choose Analysis tasks, then Amend content.

Add exact evidence passages and say whether each supports, contradicts or provides context. Add hypotheses and judgements. Explain likelihood, confidence, alternatives and gaps rather than treating a collection report as a proven fact.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Request a review

When the current revision has the required hypothesis and judgement, enter a Reason for submission and click Submit for peer review.

This locks that revision for review; it does not approve a Product or satisfy the Direction requirement.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

### Review independently

A separate eligible reviewer opens the same revision, chooses Peer reviewed or Request changes, writes Peer-review comments and clicks Record peer review.

If the analyst changes the content afterwards, arrange a fresh review of the new revision.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Are exact evidence and contrary information visible?
* Are likelihood and confidence explained separately?
* Is the reviewer independent of the contributors?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why is Create workspace missing?</summary>

Check the selected workspace, enabled Analyse and Memory features, visible requirement and your Analyse write grant.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can I not submit?</summary>

Complete the required hypothesis, judgement and assessed likelihood, then read the page's missing-input or validation message. Reopen the current saved revision if another person changed it.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can I not record peer review?</summary>

The reviewer needs current review authority and must be independent of all contributors. Ask another eligible reviewer; changing accounts does not change the retained authorship.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* The analyst owns the reasoning and uncertainty.
* The reviewer challenges the exact saved revision rather than approving its later edits.

## Reference and scope

For detailed evidence, probability and challenge rules, open Develop and independently review an assessment below.

## Related workflows

* [Develop and independently review an assessment](broken://pages/79db57a6c6245feef3fb58e4fe6d4a507b2a74a0)
* [Start here: write and release a Product](file:///7397340/product/quick-product.md)