Make accumulated user research accessible during strategy work
Turn an approved research archive into a concise briefing and question-answering assistant that the team can use in a planning workshop.
How this works
Turn an approved research archive into a concise briefing and question-answering assistant that the team can use in a planning workshop. Strategy discussions can reuse years of research only if participants can tell which findings apply to the current question. A convenient answer that hides sample, date, or methodology can make an old observation look like current customer evidence.
Prepare a curated workshop collection and a document-grounded question path. Keep study metadata next to findings, distinguish evidence from workshop hypotheses, and make unsupported questions easy to escalate to the research owner. A local indexed folder and manifest are valid fallbacks when no retrieval service is available.
Before you start
Workshop questions
Identify the actual decisions and assumptions the session will discuss.
Approved research corpus
Confirm which reports participants may access.
Research metadata
Collect dates, sample descriptions, methods, and known limitations.
Prepare the inputs
- reports
- Required
Authorized documents
Retain stable document and section IDs.
- study_metadata
- Required
Dates, sample, method
Mark missing methodological information.
- workshop_questions
- Required
Decision-focused list
Avoid vague requests for everything known.
- access_scope
- Required
Permitted participant groups
Keep restricted studies outside the shared collection.
- taxonomy
- Required
Topics and customer segments
Do not merge incompatible populations.
Implementation, step by step
Select the relevant corpus
- Map workshop questions to available studies and exclude unrelated material.
- Record coverage gaps and access restrictions before indexing.
Checkpoint: A scoped corpus manifest.
Extract findings with context
- Capture each relevant finding alongside date, method, sample, and supporting section.
- Keep researcher interpretation separate from participant statements.
Checkpoint: A contextual finding table.
Prepare the workshop brief
- Summarize durable findings, contradictions, and assumptions needing fresh evidence.
- Avoid presenting repeated citations to one study as independent confirmation.
Checkpoint: A concise evidence briefing.
Configure retrieval
- Use available document search or a structured local index with source locators.
- Test representative questions and an unanswered question before the workshop.
Checkpoint: A functioning evidence-retrieval path.
Support live questions
- Retrieve passages first, then draft a bounded answer that identifies its source and applicability.
- When evidence does not answer the question, record a research gap instead of improvising.
Checkpoint: Traceable answers and an open-question list.
Capture decisions and new hypotheses
- Record how participants used findings and which claims still need validation.
- Save new workshop ideas separately from the original research corpus.
Checkpoint: A workshop evidence and decision record.
Decisions along the way
Old study concerns a discontinued product
Use it as historical context and label the applicability limit.
Two studies conflict
Show differences in population, method, and timing before suggesting an explanation.
Question exceeds access scope
Escalate to the research owner without exposing restricted content.
What you will produce
workshop-research-brief.md
MarkdownPrepares participants for evidence-based discussion.
Include: questions · findings · study_context · contradictions · gaps
research-corpus-manifest.csv
CSVSupports reliable retrieval and maintenance.
Include: document_id · topic · date · method · sample · access · section_refs
Check the result
- Trace sampled answers to exact report sections.
- Verify sample and date appear where they affect interpretation.
- Test a question with no supported answer.
- Confirm workshop hypotheses are not stored as established findings.
When something goes wrong
Retrieval ignores a relevant study
Inspect indexing coverage and metadata filters.
A summary strips a critical limitation
Restore the limitation and review dependent answers.
A report is superseded
Retain its history and mark the current version for retrieval.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Prepare research for a checkout strategy workshop.
Inputs
Synthetic example. Synthetic study S1 interviewed five returning users last year; S2 observed new users this month and found a different obstacle.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result. The brief presents both findings with their populations and dates. It does not call them contradictory evidence about the same user group without further review.
Run a small pilot
Start small
One workshop and a small, varied corpus.
Record the baseline
Record time to find relevant evidence and researcher corrections.
Agree success criteria
Agree source-support and applicability accuracy before wider use.
Stop or revise
Stop confident answers when the relevant study or its methodology is unavailable.
Keep the scope clear
- Only approved research enters the shared workshop view.
- A retrieved finding informs a decision; it does not automatically validate the workshop's proposed solution.
Check before using
Separate findings from hypotheses, show dates and sample limitations, and verify answers against the original studies.
Business activities
- Research customers and markets
- Maintain shared company knowledge
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Approved research reports · Research dates and methodology · Workshop questions
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow