Research brief

Rendered from playbook/docs/brief-template.md. Written for the writing agents; readers are welcome.

Research brief — `<slug>`

Copy this file to playbook/briefs/<slug>.md before outlining. Do not draft until every required field is filled.

Field	Value
Slug
Primary query / `seo_intent`
Template (A–G)
Evidence tier (1–3)
Audience (one line)	Who reads this, what they already know, what voice fits (e.g. “Labubu collectors - playful group-chat talk, not a scientific paper”)
Reader's real question	What did the Google visitor hope this page would help them understand, feel, or decide?
Emotional posture	Curious, hopeful, playful, practical, urgent, reassuring, skeptical, or another named posture
Opening mode	Direct, scene, question, contrast, or simple statistic; note how it differs from the last five related openings
AI authors credited
Reviewer or checker (optional)	Expert, practitioner, editor, or `none needed`
Date

1. Concept gate (complete before research)

Why this is worth reading: One or two plain sentences. Do not mention evidence tiers or templates.

Positive opportunity / interesting territory: What is useful, delightful, surprising, or empowering here? Risk and waste may be part of the story, but they may not choose the whole emotional center.

Coverage map: List the parts of the broad topic the article must acknowledge so it does not become a narrow paper about the easiest statistic.

Deliberate exclusions: What belongs on another page, and why can this article omit it without misleading the reader?

Memorable takeaway: If the reader remembers one sentence tomorrow, what should it mean? Write the thought, not a slogan.

Concept gate: Does the concept still sound useful before any study, percentage, or template device is added? yes / revise

2. Concentration claim (one sentence)

In ____________________, ____________________ concentrates into ____________________.

Maximum 25 words. One contrast, not a colon followed by a list of levers.

3. Hard anchors (2–5)

For each: name, year, what it shows, URL (or no hard source — label as logic/illustrative).

1. 2. 3.

(optional)
(optional)

3b. Field concentration examples (research, then use editorial judgment)

Real percentage skews from this field or a tightly adjacent field. Research before drafting. Record them here, but publish only those that strengthen the reader's understanding.

Approx % claim	Field / context	Source (name, year, URL) or “adage - hedge”	What it helps the reader understand

If the niche has no useful field percentage, write none that improves this concept and use a checkable mechanism or observation. Do not force adjacent data into the article. Never fabricate a topic-specific percentage. Literal 80% and 20% are not required in the opening.

4. Signature insight

Something that gives this page a reason to exist beyond summarising search results - a synthesis, distinction, observation, audit, tracked sample, public dataset slice, practitioner note, or topic-native practice:

How it becomes a section in the article:

5. Lower-value effort or common distraction (optional)

Name it only if the contrast helps. Do not invent an enemy to satisfy the brief.

6. Composite policy

List any planned invented scenarios. Each must appear in the article as Illustrative: or be cut.

Scenario	Keep as Illustrative?	Cut instead?

7. Vital few / main movements (draft list)

1. 2. 3.

(optional)
(optional)

8. Device budget reminder

See writing-system.md for the template’s cap (example/move pairs, bottleneck count, etc.). Note the budget you will use:

8b. Viz & misreads (optional — default is omit)

D3 viz? Default none. If yes: list 4–5 chart jobs (custom type + question each answers). Do not plan a single pareto filler. Cap: ~20% of articles.

Misreads / edge Qs? (topic-native heading, not FAQ): 0–4 sharp items · or none

9. Outbound links planned (Tier 1: ≥2 required)

1. 2.

(optional)

10. Sign-off

☐ Concept gate passed before research
☐ Brief complete — ready to outline
☐ Reviewer/checker named if the topic needs one
☐ No fake citations planned
☐ Evidence supports the concept rather than replacing it