---
id: playbooks.enterprise-search
title: Using Teammately for Enterprise Search
summary: Build correctness standards for search and answer systems that must handle context, intent, and authority.
kind: recipe
product_area: playbooks
status: stable
updated: 2026-08-23
canonical: /docs/playbooks/enterprise-search
---

# Using Teammately for Enterprise Search

Use this playbook when an enterprise search or answer system must respect intent, source authority, document freshness, and uncertainty.

## Define the search contract

Use this when search results or generated answers look plausible but specialists disagree about intent, controlling source, freshness, or when the system should return partial evidence instead of a confident answer. Teammately does not ingest private search traces automatically; represent the evidence you need as Cases and materials.

## Route source authority into evidence

1. Choose a bounded search domain and identify who owns source authority in that domain.
2. Configure input fields for the query, result set, document identity, owning team, effective date, and any access context visible to the assistant.
3. Import Cases for navigational search, direct answers, ambiguous intent, conflicting documents, superseded documents, and no-result behavior.
4. Ask specialists to resolve which source controls, what partial answer is allowed, and when uncertainty or escalation is required.
5. Approve source-selection and answer-behavior Policies and Rubrics separately.
6. Inspect Dataset Representation by department, source family, intent, conflict type, and freshness before creating the Snapshot.
7. Compare saved Harness Versions by the relevant Coverage Facets and open failed Cases to distinguish ranking, selection, and answer failures.

## Failure ownership

- Wrong or missing document in the supplied result set: search/retrieval boundary.
- Controlling document present but ignored: Harness answer behavior.
- Source authority genuinely unresolved: Expert Contribution and governance.
- Segment absent from the Dataset: Coverage Management and Case preparation.

{% example-demo title="Conflicting HR search results" %}
An employee searches for remote-work reimbursement rules and receives an obsolete FAQ plus a newer policy page. HR establishes that the policy page controls and that unlisted reimbursement categories must remain unresolved. One Harness ranks the correct page first but still blends the obsolete exception into its answer. Because the Case preserves both documents and the governing Rubric, the failure belongs to answer synthesis rather than search ranking.
{% /example-demo %}

## Evidence to collect

- Canonical queries, result sets, source identity, ownership, and effective dates.
- Attributable specialist decisions for conflicts, ambiguity, partial answers, and no-result behavior.
- Separate governed standards for source selection and answer behavior.
- Representation evidence by domain, intent, source family, freshness, and conflict pattern.
- Exact Harness and Benchmark Version identities plus Case-level Rubric outcomes.

## Related docs

{% related-card-grid title="Related docs" %}
- [Inspect Dataset representation](/docs/benchmark-datasets/representation)
- [Compare Harness Versions](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/compare)
- [Read run results](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/inspect-results)
- [Run a benchmark](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation)
- [Importing cases](/docs/operating-manual/import-and-prepare-cases)
- [Agent Setup](/docs/agent-setup)
{% /related-card-grid %}

## Source confidence

Doctrine-backed: the approved product model grounds source authority in expert judgment, Coverage Facets, Cases, governed standards, and Benchmark evidence. Linked pages define the current operating surfaces and evaluation limits.