LangChain Software / SaaS United States

New Computer

Enterprise Knowledge Search

New Computer needed to improve Dot’s long-term memory retrieval so the assistant could answer personalized queries accurately across diverse intents without exposing private user data during experimentation.

40% higher precision
50% higher recall
more than 45% of which converted to the app’s paid tier

Reported impact

Business outcome

New Computer improved retrieval quality for Dot, sped prompt iteration on highly variable conversational behavior, and converted a new wave of users more effectively by making the personal-AI experience feel more accurate and bespoke over time.

  • Customer Experience
  • Revenue Growth

Solution

New Computer designed Dot around an agentic memory system where memories are created or pre-calculated first and only retrieved later, which makes retrieval quality a core product problem rather than a back-end detail. To tune that system safely, the team created cohorts of synthetic users with LLM-generated backstories, seeded their memory databases from initial conversations, and stored queries plus the full set of candidate memories in LangSmith datasets. Retrieval experiments compared simple semantic baselines against keyword, BM25, and meta-field-filtered methods using labeled examples and metrics for precision, recall, and F1. The same workflow was then extended to Dot’s dynamic conversational prompt, where LangSmith comparison views made prompt regressions visible and the built-in playground let the team adjust prompts without leaving the tool. This turned privacy-preserving retrieval tuning into a repeatable experimental loop.

Data flow

Synthetic-user conversations seed memory databases, user-style queries and the available memories are stored in LangSmith datasets, multiple retrieval methods are evaluated against labeled relevance sets, and the best memories are fed back into Dot’s dynamic conversational prompt for personalized responses.

Solution architecture

2 components · 2 layers
  1. Serving
    • Dot Uses the retrieved memories and dynamic prompts to provide personalized assistance to end users.
  2. Governance
    • LangSmith Stores datasets, runs experiments, and exposes comparison views for retrieval and prompt tuning.

Architecture clues

  • Memories include optional meta-fields such as status and date fields that can be filtered during retrieval.
  • Prompt changes are inspected through LangSmith experiment comparison views before rollout.
  • The team compares semantic, keyword, BM25, and meta-field-filtered retrieval strategies.

Evidence from the source

40% higher precision
50% higher recall
creating a cohort of synthetic users with LLM-generated backstories
more than 45% of which converted to the app’s paid tier
the full set of available memories in a LangSmith dataset
Transparency Evidence & methodology 100/100 reference value · 94% confidence · 3 sources

Review how this reference was scored and trace each normalized claim back to its documented source.

01

Scoring methodology

How scores are calculated

Customer Reference Value measures usefulness as a customer reference. Evidence Confidence measures the quality and traceability of available evidence, not independent verification.

Customer reference value100/100
  • Problem clarity20/20
    Measures whether the customer's operational problem is specific enough to compare.
  • Implementation depth25/25
    Rewards named components, data flow, integrations, and architecture detail.
  • Outcome specificity20/20
    Measures whether the reported benefit is concrete rather than a generic claim.
  • Quantified impact25/25
    3 metrics describe measurable impact.
  • Deployment scale10/10
    Rewards evidence of a live or scaled deployment and meaningful integration scope.
Evidence confidence94%
  • Source authority20/25
    The main evidence is an official vendor-published customer story.
  • Claim traceability25/25
    12 of 12 key fields link to a named source.
  • Direct evidence20/20
    5 direct source quotes retained.
  • Date provenance10/10
    The publication date comes from the source page or publisher.
  • Source transparency9/10
    3 source references document publisher, URL, authority, retrieval, and supported fields.
  • Implementation specificity10/10
    Rewards source-backed components, data flow, quantified impact, and a specific outcome.
02

Traceability

Sources & provenance

Field coverage shows which facts each source supports. Dates are shown only when documented by the source.

  1. LangChain

    New Computer customer story

    First-party
    https://blog.langchain.dev/customers-new-computer/
    Source type
    Vendor-published customer story
    Published
    Jul 2, 2024
    Supports
    • Customer
    • Business problem
    • Solution
    • Products
    • Solution components
    • Data flow
    • Integrations
    • technical area
    • use case category
    • Business outcome
    • outcome category
    • Metrics
    • Architecture
    • evidence quotes
    • Publication date
  2. New Computer

    Privacy Policy

    First-party
    https://new.computer/privacy

    The official privacy policy names "Foobarbaz Inc. dba New Computer" and lists the address "251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808."

    Source type
    Official privacy policy
    Published
    Apr 30, 2024
    Supports
    • Region
  3. LinkedIn

    New Computer | LinkedIn

    Independent secondary
    https://www.linkedin.com/company/newcomputer/

    LinkedIn's Organization JSON-LD lists numberOfEmployees value 3 and sameAs "https://new.computer".

    Source type
    Structured company profile
    Supports
    • Company size

Date evidence

  • Published on source page Jul 2, 2024 · LangChain · First-party
    Open date source
Not separately sourced Industry. Treat these normalized attributes as lower-confidence until a dedicated source is added.