Community discussed research paper tracking. No complete solution shared. Built automated monitoring system. Landed contract with research lab. 12 researchers. Monthly retainer. THE OPPORTUNITY: Researchers manually search multiple databases daily. ArXiv, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, PubMed. Tedious. Time-consuming. Inconsistent. No existing automation addressed this. Market gap identified. Built comprehensive solution. Research lab bought immediately. THE SOLUTION: Daily scheduled workflow. Searches multiple academic databases simultaneously. Validates paper quality (must have authors, abstract, PDF). Curates top papers. Delivers morning digest to team Slack. Complete research monitoring automation. THE RESEARCH LAB REACTION: Before: "We spend first hour every morning searching for new papers." After: "Papers waiting in Slack when we arrive. Start research immediately." Automation changed their morning routine. More productive research time. WHY THIS MATTERS FOR CONSULTING: Generic paper tracking = limited interest. "Just save links manually." Automated daily monitoring = professional research tool. "Essential research infrastructure." Comprehensive solution created consulting opportunity worth monthly retainer. THE CLIENT RESULTS: Research lab: 12 researchers. Each spending 5 hours weekly on literature searches. Before automation: 60 researcher-hours weekly on manual searching. After automation: Papers curated automatically. Research team reviews 15-minute digest. Saves 58 hours weekly. Monthly retainer justified by massive time savings. Research lab productivity increased measurably. THE EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY: Research lab has connections to 6 other labs in same field. Referred automation to colleagues. Consulting pipeline filled through academic network. Same workflow. Different research topics. Each lab becomes paying client. THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: Most researchers use manual Google Scholar alerts. Basic. Miss papers from other databases. No curation.

University admissions. 1,200 transcripts annually. Manual entry consuming 900 hours. Built n8n workflow. Zero manual transcription. Perfect accuracy. THE ADMISSIONS PROBLEM: Every incoming transcript requiring manual processing. Coordinator downloads PDF from email attachment. Opens admissions system. Types student details into database. Enters institution information manually. Transcribes all courses individually - course codes, course names, credit hours, letter grades, semester completed. 15-30 courses per transcript average. Each course typed manually. Manual GPA verification against transcript calculation. Academic honors notation if present. Verification status determination based on transcript type. 45 minutes per transcript. 1,200 transcripts annually. 900 hours consumed. Quality audit revealed 14.8% error rate. Course entry typos. GPA calculation mistakes. Overlooked academic honors. Inconsistent verification flagging across coordinators. THE n8n AUTOMATION: 7-node workflow with 3-branch verification routing: Node 1 - Gmail Trigger: Monitors transcript emails Node 2 - Get Email: Downloads attachment Node 3 - Prepare Binary: Formats document Node 4 - Extract Data: Pulls student info, courses, grades, GPA, honors Node 5 - Analyze Transcript: Calculates metrics, categorizes performance Node 6 - Log Database: Updates tracking Node 7-9 - Verification Routing: Routes to verification check OR unverified path EXTRACTION: Student - name, ID, DOB, email Institution - name, address, registrar Degree - program, major, minor, dates Courses - code, name, credits, grade, semester, year (all courses) Academic - credits attempted/earned, GPA, honors Metadata - type (official/unofficial), date, signature ANALYSIS: Total courses count Completion rate percentage GPA categorization (Exceptional/Excellent/Good/Fair) Academic standing (Dean's List/Good Standing/Probation) Grade distribution summary Verification evaluation (official + student ID) VERIFICATION LOGIC: