Our RAG solutions connect AI models to your own documents, databases and knowledge bases, so answers come from your information rather than from whatever the model happened to be trained on. The build can include document processing, retrieval, LLM integration, APIs, evaluation and deployment, depending on what the use case needs.
RAG solutions combine information retrieval with generative AI, so an application retrieves relevant information from connected data sources and uses that context when generating a response. The connected sources are typically business documents, knowledge bases, databases, internal repositories and APIs, and the result is usually an AI assistant that answers from your own content and cites where each answer came from.
The practical difference from a plain chatbot is verifiability. When an answer carries the passage and document it came from, a user can check it — which is what makes RAG usable for policy, product and support questions where being confidently wrong is expensive.
Nine areas covering the path from raw content to a deployed, measured assistant. Most projects use five or six, and our RAG services can be engaged for a full build or for a single stage such as evaluation.
RAG applications designed around your specific data, users and the questions they actually ask — chunking, retrieval strategy and prompts tuned to your content rather than to a demo dataset.
Suits: requirements no packaged tool matches.
Includes: architecture, retrieval, application, evaluation.
Value: answer quality tuned to your material.
Retrieval across several sources with permissions applied at query time, so each user reaches only the content their role allows.
Suits: larger organisations with sensitive or segmented knowledge.
Includes: access control, audit logging, monitoring.
Value: a shared assistant that respects existing permissions.
Retrieval from PDFs, manuals, policies, reports and knowledge articles, with the relevant section returned alongside the answer.
Suits: large document sets nobody has time to read.
Includes: ingestion, extraction, chunking, indexing.
Value: answers found in seconds instead of searched for.
Conversational applications that retrieve before they answer, holding context across a conversation and handing off when confidence is low.
Suits: support, sales and internal help desks.
Includes: chat interface, retrieval, escalation logic.
Value: routine questions answered without a person.
AI layered over structured organisational knowledge — wikis, help centres and internal repositories — so people ask questions instead of browsing categories.
Suits: teams with a knowledge base nobody searches successfully.
Includes: source syncing, metadata, semantic search.
Value: existing content finally gets used.
Retrieval that reaches structured business data, either querying records directly or combining structured lookups with document retrieval.
Suits: questions whose answers live in rows, not paragraphs.
Includes: query generation, record retrieval, validation.
Value: one interface across documents and data.
The retrieval layer exposed as an API your product calls, with the language model wired in behind it and swappable as models change.
Suits: teams adding retrieval to an existing application.
Includes: API layer, LLM integration, auth, rate handling.
Value: RAG inside your product without a rebuild.
Structured measurement of retrieval relevance, grounding and citation quality against a fixed question set — then targeted fixes where the numbers are weak.
Suits: RAG systems that work in demos and fail in use.
Includes: evaluation set, scoring, chunking and retrieval tuning.
Value: quality you can measure rather than argue about.
Content changes, models improve and question patterns shift. Ongoing work keeps the index current, the prompts tuned and the costs controlled.
Suits: deployed systems with active users.
Includes: re-indexing, model updates, monitoring, new sources.
Value: quality holds as your content moves.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Reading as solution type → data source → core experience → suitable use case.
| Solution type | Data source | Core experience | Suitable use case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document-based RAG | PDFs, manuals, reports | Ask questions of a document set | Policy, contract and manual lookup |
| Enterprise RAG | Multiple systems, permissioned | Role-aware answers across sources | Large organisations with segmented data |
| Knowledge base RAG | Wikis, help centres | Natural-language search over existing content | Teams whose knowledge base goes unused |
| RAG chatbots | Support content, product docs | Conversational answers with sources | Customer and employee support |
| AI knowledge assistants | Approved internal sources | Direct answers to staff questions | Onboarding and internal enablement |
| Customer support RAG | Help articles, past tickets | Agent-assist or self-service answers | Reducing repeat first-line queries |
| Technical documentation assistants | Technical docs, runbooks | Troubleshooting with cited steps | Engineering and product support |
| Product knowledge assistants | Catalogue and spec data | Product questions answered accurately | Sales enablement and pre-sales |
| Research assistants | Approved research corpora | Synthesis across many documents | Analysis and review teams |
| Compliance knowledge systems | Policies, regulations | Answers traceable to a clause | Regulated processes needing an audit trail |
| Database-connected RAG | Structured business data | Questions answered from records | Operational and reporting queries |
| Multi-source and API-integrated RAG | Documents plus live APIs | Combined static and live information | Answers needing current system state |
Six steps, plainly: user query → query processing → retrieval → context selection → LLM generation → grounded response.
Most quality problems in a RAG system come from step three, not step five. When answers are wrong, retrieval is usually the place to look first.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
The sequence: business requirement → data sources → retrieval strategy → RAG architecture → LLM integration → application → evaluation → deployment.
At enterprise scale the hard part stops being retrieval quality and becomes permissions. An assistant that answers HR questions correctly but shows one department's content to another is worse than no assistant at all. Enterprise RAG solutions apply access rules at query time, so retrieval itself is filtered by what the user is allowed to see.
No compliance certifications are claimed here. Where a certification is required, tell us during discovery so scope can be confirmed honestly.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
The path every source takes: business data → processing → indexing → retrieval → LLM context → response.
Connecting a source is implementation work, not a switch. Each one needs access, extraction handling, an update strategy and its own testing — which is exactly what the data assessment stage sizes up before anything is quoted.
Document RAG is where most organisations start, because the content already exists and the pain is obvious — a policy set nobody can navigate, a product manual support keeps re-reading, five years of reports with one useful number in them.
Chunking deserves more attention than it usually gets. Split a document badly and retrieval returns half a clause with the qualifying sentence missing — which produces confident, wrong answers from an otherwise sound system.
Document RAG pipeline: documents are ingested, text extracted, chunked, embedded, and indexed in a vector database for retrieval
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
A typical shape: user → RAG application → query processing → retrieval layer → knowledge and data layer → context → LLM → response, with monitoring across the whole path.
No single architecture fits every project. The shape depends on data type, retrieval requirements, application type, scale, security, LLM choice, infrastructure and what has to be integrated — which is why architecture comes after the data assessment rather than before it.
Vector search matches meaning rather than exact words, which is why a user asking about "time off" finds the leave policy. It is not automatically the right answer for everything — for product codes, names and exact identifiers, keyword search still wins, and hybrid retrieval that runs both usually beats either alone.
Selection follows scale, hosting preference and budget. If your organisation already runs a different vector store, raise it in discovery so fit can be confirmed.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
The relationship in one line: retrieval layer + relevant context + LLM = a grounded AI response. The AI capability in RAG solutions AI systems rests on all three parts — retrieval, your business data, and the model that writes the answer — so weakness in any one of them shows up in the output.
Does RAG eliminate hallucinations? No. RAG can improve response grounding by supplying relevant retrieved context, but output quality still depends on retrieval quality, data quality, prompting, model behaviour and ongoing evaluation. Any provider promising zero hallucinations is describing something the technology does not deliver.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Reading as goal → RAG solution → product value.
| Factor | Traditional LLM application | RAG solution |
|---|---|---|
| External knowledge retrieval | Limited or project-dependent | Core capability |
| Business-specific data | Requires separate integration | Designed around connected knowledge |
| Knowledge updates | May need other approaches | Retrieves current source information |
| Retrieval layer | Not necessarily present | A core component |
| Grounding | Depends on implementation | Retrieved context provides support |
| Source citation | Generally unavailable | Available where retrieval supplies it |
| Best suited for | General generation tasks | Knowledge-intensive applications |
RAG is not automatically the better choice. For drafting, summarising supplied text or general generation, a straightforward LLM application is simpler and cheaper to run. The decision depends on data requirements, application goal, model capability, freshness needs, retrieval needs, cost and complexity — and where RAG is not warranted, we say so.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
The loop: retrieve → evaluate → identify weakness → optimise → re-test. Without it, quality is a matter of opinion.
Evaluation runs against a fixed dataset built from real user queries, with regression testing so a change that fixes one question type does not quietly break another.
No accuracy percentage is promised before evaluation. Any figure quoted before seeing your data is a guess.
A retrieval system reaches business content by design, which makes access control part of the architecture rather than a setting applied afterwards. Permissions are enforced at retrieval, so restricted material never enters the model's context in the first place.
No system is claimed to be completely secure, and no compliance certifications are asserted here. Where a specific standard is required, raise it in discovery so scope and feasibility can be confirmed before commitments are made.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
The pattern: application → RAG API → retrieval layer → data and knowledge sources → LLM → response.
Exposing retrieval as an API keeps the RAG layer independent of whatever calls it. Your web app, mobile app and internal tools all hit the same endpoint, and improving retrieval improves every one of them without a release in each.
Diagram showing an application calling a RAG API, which reaches a retrieval layer, connected data sources and a language model before returning a response
Nine stages. Data assessment sits second for a reason — it decides whether the rest is feasible.
The business problem, users, the questions they need answered, data sources, expected output, security requirements, integrations and deployment target are established first.
Sources, quality, formats, structure, access permissions and update frequency are reviewed. Where the content will not support the use case, that is said at this stage rather than after a build.
Retrieval approach, data pipeline, embedding strategy, search and indexing, LLM selection, APIs and application architecture are defined and documented.
Ingestion, cleaning, chunking, metadata tagging, embedding generation and index construction — usually the largest phase on document-heavy projects.
Query processing, retrieval, context selection, LLM integration, application logic and the user interface are built in reviewable increments.
Where required: APIs, databases, authentication, external services and enterprise systems connected to the retrieval layer.
Retrieval relevance, answer quality, grounding, citation correctness, failure cases, latency, security behaviour and application stability measured against a fixed question set.
Released into the agreed environment — your cloud account, ours or on-premise — with environments, access and handover documentation.
Where the engagement includes it: data updates, retrieval tuning, model updates, prompt improvements, new integrations, monitoring and cost control.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Technologies our team works with directly. Selection follows the data and the deployment environment.
Only technologies in active use are listed. If your stack differs, raise it during discovery and fit will be confirmed before scoping.
For AI applications already built: existing application → assessment → RAG integration or enhancement → evaluation → optimisation → release.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Illustrative builds showing scope and approach. Replace with verified client case studies once written approval is in place.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
No fixed prices are published, because two projects described identically can differ several times over — almost always because of the data. Cost depends on:
A written scope with deliverables and an estimate follows discovery and data assessment.
Data readiness drives the schedule more than architecture does. Clean, accessible, well-structured content moves fast; scattered documents in mixed formats with unclear ownership do not. Dates in a proposal are estimates against agreed scope.
| Phase | What happens |
|---|---|
| Discovery | Use case, users and success criteria agreed |
| Data assessment | Sources, quality and feasibility reviewed |
| Architecture | Retrieval approach, stack and integrations defined |
| Development | Indexing, retrieval and application build |
| Integration | APIs, systems and authentication connected |
| Evaluation | Measured against the agreed question set |
| Deployment | Released into the target environment |
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Our team is based in Hyderabad and delivers RAG based solutions to clients across India, with onsite discovery and review sessions for Hyderabad and Telangana clients where that helps. Enterprise RAG solutions in particular benefit from a working session early — walking through where content actually lives and who is allowed to see it usually surfaces more than a requirements document does.
Remote delivery is the norm for everyone else: scheduled reviews, working demos against your own content, and deployment into your chosen environment. Where data residency matters, hosting inside your own cloud account is supported.
RAG demos are easy to make impressive and hard to make reliable. These questions separate the two faster than a portfolio does.
One claim to treat as a warning sign: guaranteed accuracy, or zero hallucinations. Neither is deliverable with current technology, and a provider promising them either does not know that or is counting on you not knowing.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
| Your question | Our answer |
|---|---|
| What are RAG solutions? | AI applications that retrieve relevant information from your documents, databases or knowledge bases and use it as context when generating an answer. |
| Can you build custom RAG solutions? | Yes — designed around your data sources, users and question types, with retrieval and prompts tuned to your content. |
| How much does RAG development cost? | It depends on data volume and cleanliness, retrieval architecture, integrations, security scope and deployment. An estimate follows the data assessment. |
| How long does it take to build a RAG solution? | Data readiness decides it. An indicative schedule follows the data assessment, clearly labelled as an estimate. |
Client testimonials for RAG engagements will be published here as clients approve them.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
RAG solutions combine information retrieval with generative AI. The application searches your connected data — documents, knowledge bases, databases or APIs — retrieves the relevant passages, and passes them to a language model as context so the answer is grounded in your own information.
A RAG solutions company designs the retrieval architecture, prepares and indexes your data, builds the application around it, integrates the LLM and your existing systems, evaluates answer quality against a test set, and deploys and maintains the result.
Our RAG development services cover use-case discovery, data assessment, architecture planning, ingestion and indexing, retrieval and application development, LLM and API integration, evaluation, deployment and ongoing optimisation.
Yes. Custom RAG solutions are designed around your data sources, your users and the questions they actually ask, rather than fitted to a packaged product. Chunking, retrieval strategy and prompt design are tuned to your content.
Document question-answering, internal knowledge assistants, customer support assistants, technical documentation assistants, product knowledge systems, enterprise search with natural language, RAG chatbots, and multi-source or API-integrated retrieval systems.
Yes. PDFs, manuals, policies, reports, knowledge articles and product documentation can be ingested, chunked, embedded and indexed so the application retrieves the relevant sections before answering, with the source shown alongside.
Yes. Structured business data can be connected, either by retrieving records directly or by combining structured queries with document retrieval. The right approach depends on whether the answer lives in a row or in a paragraph.
Enterprise RAG solutions handle multiple data sources with access control, so users retrieve only what their role permits. They add permission-aware retrieval, audit logging, monitoring, evaluation and deployment inside your own environment.
Our team works with Python and FastAPI, LangChain and LlamaIndex, embedding models, vector databases such as Pinecone, FAISS and Chroma, LLM APIs from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, and deploys on Azure, AWS or Google Cloud with Docker.
OpenAI, Claude and Gemini models are integrated through their APIs, and open models can be used where data residency or cost requires it. Model choice is made on answer quality, latency, cost and data-handling requirements for your use case.
Yes, where semantic retrieval suits the content. Pinecone, FAISS and Chroma are used depending on scale, hosting preference and budget. Some projects perform better with hybrid retrieval that combines keyword search with vector similarity.
Yes. The retrieval layer can be exposed as an API your existing product calls, and it can connect to CRMs, knowledge systems, internal tools, authentication services and cloud platforms.
Nine stages: use-case discovery, data assessment, architecture planning, data processing and indexing, RAG development, API and backend integration, evaluation and testing, deployment, and ongoing maintenance and optimisation.
Cost depends on data volume and number of sources, document complexity and cleanliness, retrieval architecture, vector database and LLM choice, integrations, user roles and security requirements, interface scope, evaluation depth and deployment environment.
Data readiness drives the schedule more than anything else. Clean, accessible documents move quickly; scattered or poorly structured content takes longer to prepare. An indicative schedule follows the data assessment and is labelled as an estimate.
Against a fixed question set built from real user queries, measuring whether retrieval returned the right passages, whether the answer is grounded in them, whether citations are correct, and how the system behaves when no good answer exists.
Yes. Existing applications start with an assessment of current retrieval, data sources, chunking, prompts and failure cases. Improvements usually come from chunking and retrieval changes before any model change is needed.
No, and any provider claiming it does is overstating. RAG improves grounding by supplying relevant retrieved context, but output quality still depends on retrieval quality, data quality, prompting, model behaviour and ongoing evaluation.
A traditional LLM application answers from what the model already contains. A RAG solution retrieves relevant information from your connected sources first and answers from that, which means it can reflect current, business-specific content and cite where the answer came from.
Start with a conversation about the questions users need answered and what data you hold. A data assessment follows, then a written approach and scope with the recommended retrieval architecture before development begins.
A first call covers the questions your users need answered, what data you hold and where it lives, the retrieval approach that suits it, integration and security requirements, and the realistic scope for a first release.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Tell us what users need to ask and where the answers currently live. You will get a reply with next steps and, where the use case is clear enough, an outline of the retrieval approach we would recommend.
Guides from our team on the decisions that shape a retrieval system.
Have something in mind?
Talk to the Brolly AI team about your next step.
Tell us what users need to do, what is slowing the business down and what a successful outcome should look like. We will help you identify the appropriate AI, software, product or training pathway.
