The 20-Minute Claude Research Brief

You are my research lead. Help me prepare a decision brief—not a general overview.

Decision I need to make: [DECISION]
Decision deadline: [DATE]
Who will use this brief: [AUDIENCE]
What success looks like: [OUTCOME]
Known constraints: [BUDGET, TIME, RISK, GEOGRAPHY, OR OTHER LIMITS]

Before doing any analysis:
1. Rewrite the decision as one precise question.
2. List the 5–7 sub-questions that must be answered.
3. Identify what evidence would change the recommendation.
4. Identify likely blind spots or conflicts of interest.

Do not recommend anything yet. Return only the research plan.

I will provide source material below. Build an evidence ledger using only what I give you.

For every important claim, capture:
- Claim
- Supporting evidence
- Source and direct link, when available
- Source date
- Evidence strength: strong, moderate, weak, or unverified
- Any contradiction or missing context
- Relevance to the decision

Rules:
- Separate facts from interpretation.
- Never invent a citation or fill a gap with an assumption.
- Flag sources that repeat another source without adding independent evidence.
- Prefer recent primary sources when they are available.
- Finish with the three most important evidence gaps.

SOURCE MATERIAL:
[PASTE LINKS, NOTES, TRANSCRIPTS, OR DOCUMENTS]

Using the research plan and evidence ledger above, write a decision brief with this structure:

1. Decision in one sentence
2. Executive recommendation
3. Why this recommendation wins
4. Strongest evidence
5. Meaningful counterevidence
6. Options considered, with tradeoffs
7. Key assumptions
8. Risks and mitigations
9. What would change the recommendation
10. Next three actions, each with an owner and deadline placeholder

Requirements:
- Keep the main brief under 900 words.
- Cite sources beside the claims they support.
- Use calibrated language; do not present uncertainty as certainty.
- Do not hide evidence that weakens the recommendation.
- End with a confidence rating from 0–100 and explain it in two sentences.

Act as a skeptical reviewer who is accountable for catching a bad decision before it is made.

Audit the brief for:
- Unsupported or overstated claims
- Outdated evidence
- Selection bias
- Missing stakeholders
- Hidden implementation costs
- Confusion between correlation and causation
- Recommendations that do not follow from the evidence
- Actions that are vague or impossible to verify

Return:
1. The five most serious weaknesses, ranked by potential damage
2. The exact passage each weakness affects
3. The evidence or revision needed to fix it
4. A revised recommendation if the original one no longer holds

Be direct. Do not praise the brief and do not manufacture objections merely to fill the list.