Research brief structure

Research Brief Structure

A brief answers a question. A summary describes a topic. Knowing the difference saves a lot of wasted effort.

When to use

• A user needs to decide something and wants grounded reasoning, not just "read these articles."
• Evaluating a tool, vendor, market, or competitor.
• Onboarding into an unfamiliar domain (technology, industry, topic) quickly.
• Preparing for a stakeholder meeting where the deliverable is a recommendation, not a literature review.

Before you start

Nail down:

1. The question. Specific, answerable, single. "Should we use Postgres or MongoDB?" is a question. "Database research" is not.
2. The decision or action the brief supports. A brief with no downstream decision tends to be unfocused. "Pick one by Friday" focuses it.
3. Audience. Technical peer, exec, cross-functional? Drives depth, vocabulary, how much context to include.
4. Timebox. 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? Scope matches the time.
5. What's already been done. Prior briefs, opinions already formed, earlier research — skip relitigating, build on.

Authoring workflow

1. Restate the question at the top, precisely. If you can't pin it down in one sentence, you don't know what you're researching.
2. Gather sources. Cast wide, include varied viewpoints. Note for each: who, what claim, how credible. See source-evaluation.md.
3. Synthesize. Don't list sources — extract claims, note agreement / contradiction, identify gaps. See synthesis-patterns.md.
4. Identify gaps. What did you want to know but couldn't find? What would change the recommendation if discovered?
5. Recommend. Take a position. Use the evidence; acknowledge uncertainty.
6. Name the trigger to revisit. If you learned X, the recommendation would flip. Spell that out so the reader can act on it later.

The brief template

# Brief: [Question] — [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Question
[Restated in one sentence. Who needs the answer and by when.]

## Recommendation
[One sentence. Specific. "Use Postgres" not "Postgres looks good." Confidence level: high / medium / low.]

## Reasoning
[3–5 bullets with the strongest evidence. Each bullet cites source.]

## Alternatives considered
- [Option B] — pros, cons, why not.
- [Option C] — pros, cons, why not.

## Risks and mitigations
- [Top 2–3 risks of the recommendation. For each: how to mitigate.]

## Gaps
- [What you couldn't confirm. What would change the answer.]

## Trigger to revisit
[Specific event or data point that would cause re-evaluation.]

## Sources
- [Title] — [author / org] — [link] — [credibility note].
- [Title] — [author / org] — [link] — [credibility note].

Non-negotiable rules

• Start with the recommendation. Busy readers don't read to the end. Lead with the answer; back it up below.
• Specific recommendation, not vibes. "We should probably consider..." is not a recommendation. "Use X" is.
• Cite what you claim. Every non-obvious assertion has a source. "Industry standard" is not a source.
• Use primary sources when possible. Official docs > blog posts > tweets about blog posts about official docs.
• Flag uncertainty explicitly. "I couldn't find benchmarks for X at scale" is stronger than hiding the gap.
• Include dissenting evidence. If half of sources disagree with your recommendation, say so. Pretending the disagreement doesn't exist gets caught in review.
• Time-bound the brief. "This was researched on YYYY-MM-DD" matters. Fast-moving topics (new tech, vendor features) may be stale in 6 months.
• Don't write in meandering paragraphs. Bullets, tables, clear sections. Briefs are read fast; structure them for skimming.

Length

• One page for decision briefs. Forces clarity.
• Two pages max for complex topics.
• Appendices for methodology, raw data, long quotes — but the front page stands alone.

Output

The brief itself, plus:

• A 2-sentence TL;DR suitable for Slack / email.
• A 15-minute "walk me through it" talking script if the reader wants to be briefed orally.

References

• Brief template — the full template with a worked example.
• Source evaluation — assessing credibility, primary vs secondary, spotting bias, red flags.
• Synthesis patterns — how to turn raw notes into a coherent brief: agree/disagree, cluster, contradict, find gaps.