Don’t miss a post
Stay up-to-date with AI insights
.svg)
See how RapidCanvas works for you
Book a Discovery Call
Complimentary 30-min call to assess fit
Expert-led AI workshop
Don’t miss a post.
Stay up-to-date with AI insights
Most internal AI projects fail. Not because the technology falls short, but because teams pick the wrong architecture, skip critical process steps, or treat user trust as something they can patch in later.
We know this because we see companies make these mistakes. And, occasionally, on our own internal projects, we make them ourselves. You know the drill: because you’re experts at something, you try to bypass steps for speed. But what ends up happening is that you don’t get the results you want. Because great outcomes require adherence to great process.
At RapidCanvas, we believe AI can transform business outcomes. That belief drives everything we build for our clients. But believing in AI and making it work are two different things. So we apply our own methodology internally, using our projects as proving grounds where every challenge refines our approach and every lesson flows back to our customers.
In this post series, we are discussing great processes and outcomes using an internal RC project as an example. That project is called Second Brain, the internal AI assistant we built for our go-to-market teams. This tool has catalogued all of the assets that may be relevant to sales and marketing by topic and vertical, so sellers can request materials in plain English and get a curated selection of assets for their needs.
We’ll talk about why Second Brain struggled initially, and how we fixed it and made an incredible solution that is now used dozens of times per day by our GTM team. Ultimately, the series will provide business leaders with the lessons and go-forward approach that enables them to choose and deliver powerful, transformational AI to their organizations.
Our sales and marketing teams needed one place to ask straightforward questions: What proposals do we have for healthcare? Show me the supply chain management deck. What have we done in e-commerce in the EU?
Our solutions leads spend much of their days preparing pitches, decks, and meeting materials. They don't care about the technology that powers a solution like Second Brain. They care about three things: not missing that perfect case study, getting confident answers quickly, and being able to click through to the actual document or asset and move on.
We built them an AI assistant called Second Brain. Version one was sophisticated. It combined multiple search technologies, used AI to re-rank results, detected what users intended to find, and scored how much it trusted its own answers.
On paper, it looked state-of-the-art. In practice, the first iteration sacrificed trust.
Our initial Second Brain didn't fail in obvious ways. It failed in subtle, trust-harming ways: sometimes brilliant, sometimes bizarre, hard to predict, and impossible for users to debug.
Here's what actually happened. A sales rep asked for hospital proposals. The system missed our HybridChart proposal entirely, even though it was clearly about clinical documentation for hospital physicians. The technical explanation involves token mismatches, score thresholds, and re-ranking cutoffs. But the rep didn't care about any of that. They only saw: "I asked for hospital proposals, and it missed a critical one. I don't trust this."
We saw the same problem with nearly identical queries producing wildly different results. "What do we have for SCM?" surfaced random, irrelevant documents. "Supply chain management pitch decks" found exactly the right materials. To an engineer, this makes sense. Different words trigger different search paths. To a rep preparing for a meeting, the takeaway was simpler: "Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. I never know which."
The system also swung between extremes. Sometimes it refused to answer questions we knew it could answer, displaying a low "trust score" that felt like the tool was broken rather than honest. Other times, it produced long, hedging responses that buried useful information in caveats.
Our GTM teams described Second Brain v1 as inconsistent and untrustworthy.
We didn't immediately throw away our architecture. We did what every responsible team does first: we tried to fix it.
We added synonym maps so "hospital" would also search for "healthcare" and "clinical." We boosted metadata to push relevant documents higher in results. We normalized word variations. We created adaptive rules that adjusted scoring based on query characteristics.
Each patch fixed something. Together, they created an opaque scoring system where fixing one query broke another. We were spending weeks perfecting a pipeline that users still didn't trust.
That's when we asked ourselves, if we rearchitected the tool, could we do better?
Around the same time, we experimented with a different approach on other internal projects. We gave a strong AI model access to a clean, well-structured knowledge base and let it search that data using simple, explainable tools.
The results surprised us. For structured knowledge tasks like ours, this simpler approach was more reliable at finding relevant results, easier to debug when something went wrong, and faster to improve because changes happened in plain-language instructions rather than algorithmic tuning.
So we ran an experiment. We collapsed our multiple data stores into a single, well-organized knowledge file. We gave Claude access to that file along with straightforward search tools. We wrote a clear system prompt explaining what Second Brain does, where the knowledge lives, and how to behave when uncertain.
The code dropped from nearly 3,000 lines to about 300. More importantly, the user experience transformed. HybridChart and other obvious assets now appeared consistently. Similar queries produced similar results. When the system wasn't sure, it explained its assumptions and asked clarifying questions instead of either refusing to answer or hallucinating confidence.
We didn't become perfect. But we became predictably useful instead of occasionally brilliant and frequently baffling.
This story isn't about one architecture being universally better than another. It's about matching your approach to your actual problem.
Business leaders evaluating AI solutions face a fundamental choice between three approaches, and the right answer depends on your specific situation.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an AI framework that enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by letting them access and use external, up-to-date information from databases or documents before generating a response, making AI answers more accurate, factual, and relevant by reducing "hallucinations" and grounding them in specific data, like company policies or current events, without needing costly retraining. It works by retrieving relevant snippets from a knowledge base and feeding them to the LLM as context to create informed answers.
RAG works best when you have massive document collections, need to search across unstructured content at scale, and can invest in sophisticated tuning. Think legal discovery across millions of documents or customer support spanning years of case histories.
Agentic AI enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by letting them use external, up-to-date information from databases or documents before generating a response, making AI answers more accurate, factual, and relevant.
Agentic AI works like a virtual team member and excels when you need the system to take actions, not just answer questions. The AI orchestrates tasks rather than just retrieving information.
Hybrid approaches combine different AI methods, like data-driven machine learning (ML) and logic-based symbolic AI, into single systems to leverage the strengths of each, creating more robust, adaptable, and explainable solutions than a single technique could achieve alone.
For Second Brain v2, we used an agent-style architecture for orchestration but kept the knowledge retrieval simple and explicit. This gave us reliability without sacrificing capability.
The AI decision framework comes down to three questions. First, what does your data actually look like? Clean, structured information with clear metadata points toward simpler approaches. Messy, unstructured content at massive scale may require traditional RAG. Second, what's your risk tolerance? Systems that take actions carry different risks than systems that only answer questions. Third, what can your team actually maintain? A sophisticated architecture your team can't debug or improve is worse than a simpler one they can evolve.
Most importantly, every approach requires trust-by-design. Users need to understand what the system assumes, what it doesn't know, and where to find the underlying sources. A system that's technically accurate but feels unreliable will fail just as surely as one that gets answers wrong.
Second Brain taught us that complex architecture doesn't guarantee a good user experience. You can have every advanced technique in your stack and still deliver something users describe as incomplete and inconsistent.
We learned that heuristics and patches don't scale. If you're constantly solving narrow edge cases instead of improving the overall approach, you're fighting the wrong battle.
We learned that trust is as much about experience design as it is about accuracy. Users want clear assumptions, honest limits, and concrete sources they can verify.
And we learned to start simple, then add complexity only where it demonstrably pays off. The sophisticated approach is always available later. But you can't easily simplify a complex system that users have already learned not to trust.
RapidCanvas helps business leaders choose, build, and deploy AI solutions 10X faster, with measurable ROI within 6 to 12 weeks. If you're evaluating AI approaches for your organization and want to avoid the mistakes that sink most internal projects, we'd welcome the conversation. Learn more about our Two-Day AI Workshops, and read what our clients say about us on G2.
