Research prompts built around real decisions.

Synthesize [SOURCES] to answer [RESEARCH QUESTION] for decision [DECISION]. Create a source table with type, date, relevance, and limitations. Then summarize converging findings, disagreements, plausible explanations, evidence gaps, and practical implications. Distinguish direct evidence from inference. Do not invent citations or details not present in the sources. State what the evidence can support, what it cannot support, and the next evidence worth collecting.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Evaluate [SOURCE MATERIAL] as evidence for [CLAIM] in [USE CASE]. Assess authorship, expertise, publication context, methodology, sample, transparency, incentives, recency, relevance, and corroboration. Separate issues that reduce credibility from issues that merely limit applicability. Quote only short necessary fragments. Return a confidence assessment with reasons, what can safely be cited, what needs qualification, and stronger source types to seek.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Compare [OPTIONS] for [DECISION CONTEXT] using [CRITERIA] and evidence [EVIDENCE]. Define every criterion before scoring. For each option provide supported strengths, limitations, costs, risks, dependencies, and unknowns. Use the same evidence standard across options. Show how the recommendation changes when criterion weights or key assumptions change. If the evidence is insufficient, recommend a test rather than a false winner.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.