I have a Team account with you.com, and while I find it superior in many ways to Gemini Pro and Perplexity for research, it has a significant commercial flaw: ARI.

Under the Team, which I had hoped to extend to other analysts in my team, IO get 5 ARI generations in a month. However... when these generations return clearly incorrect data, and I request a search to fix that information, a second ARI credit is used, even when the requirement is relatively minor.

A case in point is a research study into ICT project costs, where the staff size of the companies examined was found to be ridiculous. For example, an organisation with tens of thousands of staff was listed as having just 5 staff. Requesting the staff sizes of the listed organisations to be re-researched incurs a full ARI credit.

The result is that in practical terms, you.com is not a viable research service: at best it can start a search, but I end up needing to move flawed reports to other services.

While it is possible to move reports into other streams of prompts, that provides no research productivity compared to keeping everything inside Gemini or using other AI workflows.

I wanted to provide this feedback so that you can reconsider the way the ARI workflow is deployed. A simple fix would be to automatically switch from ARI to a general prompt once a report has been completed. A more effective solution would be to address the ridiculously low monthly research threshold. I'd be happy to pay a higher price, or a per-research call, but not with the current workflow.