In research, there is one kind of waiting that is the most torturous: the waiting after you send materials to your advisor. But after reviewing it, I found that what is torturous is not that the advisor reads slowly; it is that "delivery" itself is too convoluted.
Method 1: WorkBuddy output + traditional sending
The process is: have the assistant provide the content, make it into a PPT yourself, then send the file via WeChat. On the advisor's side: download it on a phone, find software to open it, and look at the version you sent two hours ago. Revise one version, send it again, and the file name starts to show "v2," "final version," and "final version 2."
Method 2: MuchSci generation + link sharing
Later I changed the process: the materials are directly generated into an editable PPT by MuchSci's office AI agent, and then the document is shared—send one link to the advisor, and they can click to preview the complete content without downloading; every time I revise a version on my side, the link always points to the new version, and the advisor's comments always correspond to "now" rather than "two hours ago."
Compare the two kinds of delivery: the former is "file sent," the latter is "advisor has seen it." The download, version confirmation, and back-and-forth attachments saved in between are all real review cycles.
A delivery record for one PPT: final product generated, share link generated, advisor opens it, comments returned. Waiting time for review is also a research cost—if it can be saved, it should be saved.