Use caseI need to land the decision
Move from uncertainty to a choice you can defend
The same research problem changes shape as it moves from an open question to a call — and you decide when it moves. Nothing advances on its own.
One problem · three artifacts
- Research BriefReady to compare
Willing to say: “Three trackers look viable; cost past twenty seats is still open.”
Research this, as often as the question needs
You can stop here
- When ready · you start it
- Comparison Brief
Not produced: Overall winnerWilling to say: “Linear leads on setup effort; cost at scale is unresolved.”
You can stop here
- When a decision is needed · you start it
- Recommendation BriefSOURCEFRAME SYNTHESISPROVISIONAL
Willing to say: “Choose Linear this quarter, if setup speed stays the priority over reporting depth.”
Same evidence throughout. What changes is how far each artifact is willing to commit.
The situation
Research and decisions usually live in different documents, and the evidence dies in between
What you have
Weeks of reading, a rough sense of the answer, and a meeting where someone has to say what to do. The research is in your head and a folder of links.What goes wrong
Someone writes a decision document that asserts the conclusion. The first challenge reopens the whole question, because the evidence and the caveats never came along.What actually helps
A decision built on the same source set as the research, carrying its criteria, its status and its remaining gaps — so a challenge lands on a specific row rather than on the whole thing.
Start here
Three artifacts, two gates you open, and more than one place to stop
Stage 01 · You
Open questionAsk it in Auto without naming a shortlist you aren’t sure of. Research isn’t a mode you pick; Auto routes open research here.
Stage 02 · SourceFrame
Sources discoveredSourceFrame finds and reads the sources and investigates the options they turn up.
Stage 03 · Result
Research BriefWhat is known, which options emerged, and what is still unresolved — without choosing between the options.
What’s inside a Research BriefExit valid here
Stage 04 · Loop · you
Research thisNew variantOne bounded round on an open question or an unestablished option. A new variant appears only if the round finds something; the original stays Primary until you choose otherwise.
Returns to stage 03 as a new variant
Stage 05 · When ready · you
Create comparisonComparison BriefYou start it — nothing moves on by itself.
Move on when the options stop changing between rounds. A maturity of Ready to compare is a signal, not a trigger. The comparison is built from the Primary variant, so make a newer round Primary first if that is the one you want compared.
Stage 06 · Result
Comparison BriefThe options against shared criteria: coverage per cell, a takeaway per criterion, trade-offs and open questions — and no overall verdict, however clear it looks.
What’s inside a Comparison BriefExit valid here too
Plenty of teams only ever needed the trade-offs on one page.
Stage 07 · When a decision is needed · you
Turn into…Recommendation BriefYou start it — nothing moves on by itself.
Only when someone actually has to make the call. If a gap sits on a criterion that would decide it, close it with Add sources first.
Stage 08 · Result
Recommendation BriefThe call, with how firm it is stated — confident, conditional, or a finding that the evidence doesn’t support choosing yet — and the gaps still on the page.
What’s inside a Recommendation BriefExit valid here too
Optional. A Recommendation that says the evidence isn’t enough is a finished brief too.
The job can end at stage 03:
A Research Brief is useful on its own, and so is a Comparison Brief. A Recommendation Brief is optional. Each step forward creates a new brief from the one before it — you never re-prompt from scratch, and nothing moves on by itself.
What each artifact is willing to say
Each artifact commits a little further than the last
Same problem, three different responsibilities. A small cut of each follows; the full structure is on its Brief Type page.
Stage 1 of 3
Research Brief
What do we know, which options have emerged, and what is still unresolved?
Willing to say
Here is what the evidence supports and what it doesn’t yet. No choice between the options.
What’s inside a Research BriefResearch BriefReady to compareResearch questions
Which trackers are small product teams moving to from Jira?
AnsweredWhat makes teams this size leave Jira?
AnsweredWhat does each option cost past twenty seats?
OpenWhich options deserve a focused comparison
Answered
Stage 2 of 3
Comparison Brief
How do the options we now know compare on shared criteria?
Willing to say
This option leads on this criterion. Never that one option wins overall.
What’s inside a Comparison BriefComparison BriefSetup effort for a small team, one criterion of the comparison Linear Jira Shortcut Evidence gap: Setup effort for a small teamSupported: Default workflows usable without configuration; two sources describe same-day setup source 1 source 3. Supported: Requires scheme and workflow configuration before use; the review calls this its main cost at this size source 2. Limited evidenceSetup is mentioned but never described for a team this size source 4. Linear leads on this criterion. Its low-configuration default is directly evidenced; Shortcut’s is not source 1 source 3.- Setup effort for a small team
- Linear leads on this criterion. Its low-configuration default is directly evidenced; Shortcut’s is not source 1 source 3.
Stage 3 of 3
Recommendation Brief
Given all that, what should we do — and how sure can we be?
Willing to say
Do this, and here is how firm that is — including, sometimes, that the evidence doesn’t justify choosing.
What’s inside a Recommendation BriefRecommendation BriefWhich issue tracker should our six-person product team move to this quarter?
SOURCEFRAME SYNTHESISPROVISIONALChoose Linear this quarter if setup speed stays a higher priority than reporting depth source 1 source 3.
Evidence gaps & caveats
No source prices any option at the team’s seat count.
A worked run
From “what do teams use instead” to a call with its condition attached
Week 1 · Explore
“What are small product teams using instead of Jira, and why?”
Find sources & createMode · AutoA Research Brief at Directional findings: several trackers surfaced, only two established, and nothing yet on cost at scale.
Directional findings- 1 Answered
- 2 Partial
- 1 Open
Week 1 · Research this
- Research this
- variant 2
A round on the tracker the first pass couldn’t establish. Variant 2 establishes it; cost past twenty seats is still open. You make Variant 2 Primary, because that is the one to compare.
Ready to compare- 3 Answered
- 0 Partial
- 1 Open
Week 2 · Compare
- Create comparison
- Comparison Brief
- Option advantageLinear leads on setup effort
- Context dependentJira leads if reporting depth is required
- UnresolvedCost at scale — the evidence conflicts
A trade-off, not a verdict: speed of setup against reporting depth. The category names are for teaching; the brief writes each as a sentence.
Week 3 · Decide
- Turn into…
- Recommendation Brief
The team has to choose this quarter, so you turn the comparison into a Recommendation Brief. It comes back conditional — marked PROVISIONAL — on setup speed staying the priority, with cost at scale still listed as a gap.
How SourceFrame handles the evidence
The uncertainty survives the whole journey
One source set, carried forward
Each new brief is built from the previous stage’s Primary variant, so the decision cites the evidence the research found. No re-gathering.
Gaps stay visible
Factors considered marks any factor whose evidence is limited, missing or unresolved, so a gap the comparison couldn’t close stays visible under the call.
The decision can decline
If the evidence doesn’t support choosing, the Recommendation says so and names what is missing. That is a complete brief, not a failure.
The trail stays readable
Earlier briefs stay in the workflow. When someone challenges the call, you can walk back to the comparison row, and from there to the source.
Where you can go next
Primary brief type
Research BriefWhere the journey starts. The Comparison and Recommendation Brief pages explain the next two stages the same way.
If you’re still exploring
Research an open questionThe research half of this journey in depth, including how a round of research changes the picture.
If you already know the options
Compare tools or optionsThe research stage isn’t needed. Start at the comparison instead.
Shorter route
Answer a question with sourcesA specific question can go from a Source Brief straight to a Recommendation Brief. Not every decision needs a comparison.