Scattered Sources → Research Brief

The problem

You have twelve tabs open, three PDFs and a deadline. Summarising each one separately gives you twelve summaries and still no answer.

The workflow — 5 steps

1. Step 1

   Write the question as a decision

   Most research fails at the question. Convert 'research X' into 'we need to decide Y, and this is what would change our mind'. Everything downstream gets sharper.

   Rewrite my vague research topic into a decision-shaped question. Topic: {topic}. Output: (1) the decision being made, (2) the specific question that resolves it, (3) three sub-questions, (4) what evidence would change the answer. Challenge my framing if it is too broad.

2. Step 2

   Extract claims, not summaries

   Process each source into discrete claims with the source attached. Claims can be compared across sources; summaries cannot.

   From this source, extract only CLAIMS relevant to the question "{question}". Format: Claim | Evidence type (data / expert opinion / anecdote / marketing) | Direct quote | Date. Ignore everything not relevant. If the source has no relevant claims, say so.
   
   SOURCE:
   """
   {paste}
   """

3. Step 3

   Find where the sources disagree

   Feed the combined claim list back and ask specifically for conflicts. Agreement is cheap; the disagreements are where the real analysis lives.

   Here is the combined claim list. Identify: (1) claims multiple independent sources agree on, (2) direct contradictions — show both sides, (3) claims backed by only one source, (4) claims that are marketing rather than evidence. Do not resolve the contradictions yet.

4. Step 4

   Write the brief with a confidence line

   Force an explicit confidence rating and an 'unknowns' section. A brief without stated uncertainty is a brief that will embarrass you later.

   Write a one-page brief: (1) Answer in two sentences, (2) Three strongest supporting points with sources, (3) The strongest counter-argument, (4) Confidence: high/medium/low with why, (5) What we still do not know and how we would find out. No hedging language elsewhere.

5. Step 5

   Stress-test before you send it

   Run one adversarial pass. This catches over-claiming and single-source dependencies before a colleague does.

   Act as a sceptical reviewer who disagrees with this brief. Name every over-claim, every conclusion resting on a single source, and every place I have confused correlation with causation. Be blunt.

What changes when you run it

Free prompts used in this workflow

Prompts are the ingredients; this workflow is the recipe. Each of these is free to copy.

• Topic BriefGet up to speed in 10 minutes
• Competitor ScanMap a competitive landscape
• Market SizingTAM/SAM/SOM in plain English
• Customer Interview GuideRun interviews that uncover insight
• Literature SummarySynthesise multiple sources
• Trend AnalysisSpot what's actually changing

Related workflows

• Competitor → Positioning TeardownResearch & analysis
• Messy Week → Status ReportPlanning & operations
• New Subject → Working KnowledgeLearning & growth