Two ways to build the file
Opposition research, as the opposition research page uses the term, is the collection and citation of public records about a candidate. Campaigns use that file to prepare, to draw contrasts, and to read their own candidate the same way. A traditional firm and a piece of research software can both help. They do not deliver the same object.
This page does not name a research firm, a software vendor, or an AI company other than OppIntell. It does not describe any specific company. Where a traditional firm is the stronger tool, the page says so.
Turnaround
A traditional firm produces something that does not exist yet: a book, a memo, or an answer to a question the campaign named. The time it takes is the time that assignment takes. This page does not state a number of days. A universal turnaround for "firms" would be a guess about work that has not been scoped.
Research software is different when the records are already organized. A reader can open a profile without waiting for a new book. That applies only to candidates the database already covers. It does not apply to a paper file, an interview, or a local record nobody has ingested. An AI assistant can draft from material already in the file. The draft is not a source, and it is not a finished book. The complete guide to evidence-backed opposition research is the standard that draft still has to meet: identity first, and a source on every line a campaign intends to repeat.
Sourcing and citation transparency
The test is the same for a firm, a database, and an AI platform. Can a second person open the record and find the language the file cites? A careful book does this by naming the document, the date, and the limit of what that document shows. A careful software profile does it by attaching the source to the line. A paraphrase, a round number with no report date, or a model summary with no document fails the test no matter which product produced it.
OppIntell's published standard is already on the opposition research page. A published briefing attaches a source URL and a source type to each claim. Source types include an FEC filing, a Secretary of State portal, a court record, an official campaign site, and a government press release. Citation validation records whether that document still exists and still contains the cited language. A claim that fails validation stays out of the public post. Opposition research sources names the record types, and the methodology page states the sourcing rules. A firm book can meet the same standard. This page does not claim that firms hide sources, or that software always shows them.
Coverage
A firm covers the candidates it is hired to cover. That can be one person, researched past what a national file holds, and it can be empty for everyone else. Research software covers the candidates already in the database. A wide database does not create a record that was never filed. A deep book on one candidate does not answer a question about a different race.
The public site states OppIntell's coverage as 24,000+ U.S. candidates, across parties and across federal, state, and local offices. Both sides of a race use the same fields: votes where a voting record exists, public statements, finance filings, disclosures, donor lines from those filings, and court records that match the person. Race hubs and state hubs list that universe. A donor line is a reported gift, not a private promise. An empty record stays empty. A firm hired for one race can go get a record the index does not hold. That is a coverage advantage for the firm, on that race.
Where a traditional firm is stronger
Human judgment is the clearest place a traditional firm is stronger. Software can point at two sourced records a reader might miss. OppIntell calls that a contradiction flag: both items stay attached, and a one-sided flag stays an open question. The flag does not decide whether the line is fair to say in that place, in that week. A researcher on the assignment can make that call and can explain it to the campaign. An AI draft can propose language from the file. The campaign, or the person hired to know the race, still has to accept or reject it.
A firm is also stronger when the record is not already structured. Interviews, a paper file at a clerk's office, a records request, and local context that was never ingested are original work. A database does not do that work by being queried. A firm is stronger when the campaign wants a book for one moment, such as a debate or a mail piece, rather than a maintained profile. A firm is stronger when two records share a name and the documents do not settle the identity. A court record belongs only when the identity matches. Software can show both records. A person on the race decides whether they are the same person.
Request a research book
The two products have different shapes. A traditional firm takes a defined assignment: one candidate, one book, or one question. Research software organizes profiles that are already in the database, and that access can be used on more than one candidate. OppIntell prepares a research book for one candidate and keeps public profiles on the site. Request a research book or profile access through the contact form.
What OppIntell states it does
OppIntell is opposition research software, not a traditional research firm. The public site describes source-cited candidate profiles, donor network mapping from disclosed filings, candidate comparison, contradiction flags, and an AI research assistant. The assistant can help a team draft from material already in the file. The draft still has to match the records. A published claim that fails citation validation stays out of the public post. These tools sit under the campaign's own judgment. They do not replace a firm hired to investigate one race, write a custom book, or explain a line in the room, and they do not supply the campaign's lawyer. This page is not legal advice.
Questions researchers ask
How does turnaround differ between a firm and research software?
A traditional firm delivers a commissioned assignment, so the calendar is the scope of that work. Research software can open a profile when the records are already organized. Opening that profile is not the same thing as receiving a custom book.
What does citation transparency mean in this comparison?
A line is transparent when a second person can open the record it came from. A careful firm book and a careful software profile can both do that. A paraphrase with no document is not ready, whichever product produced it. A published OppIntell briefing attaches a source URL and a source type, and citation validation checks that the document still exists and still contains the cited language.
How does coverage differ?
A firm covers the candidates it is hired to cover, including records a database has not ingested. Research software covers the candidates already in the database. OppIntell states that coverage as 24,000+ U.S. candidates, across parties and across federal, state, and local offices. A section with no record stays empty either way.
Where is a traditional opposition research firm stronger?
A firm is stronger when the work is one race and the answer is not already a structured public filing: an interview, a paper file, a records request, or local context. It is stronger when a person has to decide which sourced line is fair to say and then explain that choice. Software can place two sourced records side by side. It does not make that judgment.
How do I request an OppIntell research book?
Request a research book or profile access through the contact form. A firm is engaged for a defined assignment. Research software is access to organized profiles, which can cover more than one candidate.
Start from the public record
OppIntell builds source-cited candidate profiles from public records. If you want a file a second person can check, use the contact form on the opposition research page.