The experiment failed. The cause is findable.
Formulation troubleshooting with the evidence open.
Describe the failure and put your spectra, curves, photos, and experiment records on the table. REACTOR's Formulation Agent pulls failure-mode precedent from literature, patents, and supplier data, then returns ranked directions to investigate. Every claim traced to a source you can open. Built by scientists.
Schedule a DemoA live working session on a failure you bring. Ideally one you already solved, so you can check the answer.
1,300+ researchers on the platform (as of July 2026)
Cosmetics & personal care · Paints & coatings · Polymers & plastics · Adhesives & construction chemicals
Stability record · Experiment 14
Out of specRanked directions to investigate
- 1Emulsifier system near its cloud point at 45 °Crefs 2, 6
- 2Electrolyte load from the new extract lotrefs 4, 9
- 3Shear history changed between experimentsyour records, confirm
Trusted by researchers in industry and at leading universities
Every lab has a wall like this
The products differ. The 2 a.m. questions rhyme.
Same symptom, many mechanisms
Separation alone can be a cloud point, an electrolyte load, shear history, or a raw-material lot. The symptom rarely names its cause, and testing mechanisms one by one is the slow way to find out.
The clock is not neutral
A failed experiment blocks a line, a launch, or a customer answer. Every blind re-run costs days and materials, and the pressure to just try something grows by the hour.
The answer exists, scattered
In a paper you haven't found, a patent you'd never search, a TDS footnote, or the notebook of someone who left. Finding it under pressure is the real problem.
The craft is yours. The evidence problem is solvable.
Pick a failure. Watch the investigation.
Ask a troubleshooting question and REACTOR engages its dedicated Formulation Agent: an agentic investigation over your formula's reality, the evidence you upload, and the published record, with the reasoning shown at every step.
The failure you bring
“My O/W emulsion separates after 48 hours at 45 °C. Experiment 13 passed the same test. What should I rule out first?”
Plain language. Your formula's reality, your evidence, your deadline.
The investigation
1/5- 1Takes the failure as context
What changed between experiment 13 and 14: the formula's reality, the test conditions, and what you've already tried.
- 2Reads the evidence you upload
- 3Pulls failure-mode precedent
- 4Reasons through mechanisms
- 5Proposes what to rule out first
What you walk away with
- 1Emulsifier system near its cloud point at 45 °Crefs 2, 6
- 2Electrolyte load from the new extract lotrefs 4, 9
- 3Shear history changed between experimentsyour records, confirm
Three mechanisms worth testing before another chamber run, in a defensible order, with the precedent behind each one open.
Every investigation draws on
Your formulas and your failures stay yours. They are not used to train our foundational models.
Put the real evidence on the table
Troubleshooting runs on what actually happened. REACTOR reads your evidence and reasons over it alongside the published record.
Photos of the failed sample
The split, the crater, the discoloration. Read as scientific visuals and reasoned over.
Spectra and curves
Absorbance, FTIR, viscosity, DSC traces: interpreted with the uncertainty marked.
Micrographs
Dispersion state, particle size, film defects: what the magnified evidence shows.
Experiment records and QC logs
What actually happened, ingested as context the investigation reasons with.
The formula itself
Your composition, treated as the trade secret it is. Never used to train our models.
Supplier TDS and CoAs
The fine print that often holds the answer, saved as re-queryable references.
The prototype lost UVA absorbance on irradiation, and the formulator asked why. REACTOR reads the uploaded spectrum and reports the published degradation numbers as a spread with methods attached, not a single average.
Visual interpretation is AI-assisted and marked with uncertainty. It will not pretend to read a number a chart does not show.
What you get, today
Every capability below is live in REACTOR now. Nothing on this page is a roadmap promise.
The Formulation Agent
Ask a formulation question and REACTOR engages a dedicated agent, not a generic chat. It helps you prepare, evaluate, and improve the formula you're working on, and troubleshooting is where it earns its keep: your failure as context, your evidence read, mechanisms ranked with the reasoning shown.
Scientific visual analysis
Spectra, curves, micrographs, and defect photos read and integrated into the investigation. AI-assisted interpretation, with the uncertainty marked.
Evidence & referencing
Every output is sequentially referenced. Open the source behind any claim: literature, patents, supplier documents.
Ingredient & property data
Compound data, properties, and safety information retrieved from PubChem. Verified, not generated.
Failure-mode precedent
How comparable systems failed, and were fixed, discovered across literature and patent records from your project's context.
Real-world sources that persist
Datasheets, supplier pages, and regulatory documents pulled in during reasoning and saved as re-queryable References that don't disappear.
The fix becomes memory
The diagnosis, the evidence, and what worked stay queryable in the project, for the next experiment and the next person.
Built for skeptics
REACTOR was built by scientists who were tired of confident nonsense.
Ranked directions with references, not confident guesses.
Chemical data checked against PubChem, not generated.
Uncertainty stated and missing context requested, not papered over.
Founded by a physical chemist, a computer scientist, and a computational neuroscientist.
REACTOR won't run the confirming experiment.
It narrows what's worth testing and shows you why, so the next experiment is an informed one, not another roll of the dice.
Your formulas stay yours.
So do your failures.
What went wrong, and how you fixed it, is IP too. REACTOR is built around that reality. The details are public in our AI Data Policy.
- ✓
Your data and your IP stay yours
Everything you upload or create in REACTOR (formulas, files, notes, findings) remains your property, with full visibility and control.
- ✓
Not used to train models
Your private research data is not used to train our foundational models. They learn from public scientific datasets, not from your uploads.
- ✓
Private, isolated workspaces
Your Research Spaces are accessible to your organization only. Your data is never shared with other customers.
- ✓
Encrypted and access-controlled
Data is encrypted in storage and in transit, with role-based access control and audit logging on every access.
- ✓
You can leave with everything
Export your data whenever you want, and request deletion when you go. Ownership includes the exit.
What R&D teams say about Elementics
“I tested REACTOR's capabilities to provide valid safety protocols on an experimental process, not only did it outperform other tools, it flagged essential actions that were otherwise missed.”
“…to my delight I've received comprehensive answers which I can immediately use in my further research.”
“REACTOR makes it easier to organize, access, and build research data to perform good and efficient research.”
“Your platform was genuinely helpful for structuring materials… I even leaned on the AI for a quality check.”
“I've really enjoyed using the Elementics.ai research platform! The interface is clean, intuitive, and aesthetically pleasing, making it easy to navigate large amounts of information. One of its biggest strengths is how it helps organize the scientific literature and visualize different research branches, allowing me to keep track of related topics, surveys, and emerging directions. It has been a valuable tool for exploring new areas efficiently and maintaining a structured overview of the research landscape.”
“I tested REACTOR's capabilities to provide valid safety protocols on an experimental process, not only did it outperform other tools, it flagged essential actions that were otherwise missed.”
“…to my delight I've received comprehensive answers which I can immediately use in my further research.”
“REACTOR makes it easier to organize, access, and build research data to perform good and efficient research.”
“Your platform was genuinely helpful for structuring materials… I even leaned on the AI for a quality check.”
“I've really enjoyed using the Elementics.ai research platform! The interface is clean, intuitive, and aesthetically pleasing, making it easy to navigate large amounts of information. One of its biggest strengths is how it helps organize the scientific literature and visualize different research branches, allowing me to keep track of related topics, surveys, and emerging directions. It has been a valuable tool for exploring new areas efficiently and maintaining a structured overview of the research landscape.”
The questions troubleshooters ask us
Can it actually find my root cause?
It returns ranked directions grounded in failure-mode precedent and verified material data, with a suggested order for ruling them out at the bench. You confirm the cause; REACTOR's job is to make sure you test the likely mechanisms first, with the evidence behind each one open. Where the evidence is thin, it says so instead of guessing.
What can I give it to work with?
The failure in plain language, plus the evidence: photos of the sample, spectra, viscosity curves, micrographs, experiment records, your formula, supplier TDS and CoA documents. PDFs and scientific visuals are read and integrated, not just attached.
Is this another formula generator?
No. REACTOR is reasoning support with sources. In troubleshooting it ranks mechanisms worth testing and shows where every suggestion comes from. You stay the formulator, and the bench stays the judge.
How is it different from ChatGPT?
REACTOR is chemistry-native: it verifies chemical data against PubChem, keeps a persistent referenced workspace, and marks uncertainty instead of papering over it. Generic chat optimizes for plausibility. Troubleshooting needs evidence, because a plausible wrong answer costs you an experiment.
We already have an ELN.
Different job. Your ELN records what happened; REACTOR helps decide what to test next. They coexist, and REACTOR fits alongside your existing tools.
Does it replace bench validation?
No, and it will tell you so itself. The confirming experiment is still yours to run. REACTOR narrows what's worth testing and puts the evidence behind each direction in front of you.
Building something new rather than fixing it? See REACTOR for formulation development.
Bring us a failure you've already solved.
The fastest way to judge a troubleshooting tool is a case with a known answer. Schedule a demo and we'll run the investigation live on your failure, so you can check whether it reaches the cause you found, with sources you can open.
- Watch the investigation run on your real failure, not a canned script
- Open the references behind every ranked direction yourself
- See what it says when the evidence is thin
- Ask it the questions you'd ask a colleague
Schedule a Demo
Tell us what failed. We'll run the session on a problem like yours, live, with sources you can open.