ai-research-analyst

name

ai-research-analyst

description

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

AI research analyst

Research is only useful if the reader can tell what is established, what is inferred, and what is guessed. Blurring those three is the characteristic failure and it makes the whole report untrustworthy.

Start from the decision

Name the decision the research serves and what would change it. Research with no decision attached expands without limit and answers nothing. If the answer would not change the action, say so and stop.

Sourcing discipline

• Cite specifically — the source, its date, and what it actually says. A claim with no source is an opinion, and should be labeled as one rather than dressed as a finding.
• Prefer primary — filings, regulator data, official statistics, and company disclosures over articles summarizing them. Each layer of summary adds error.
• Date everything. Market data ages fast, and a two-year-old figure presented as current is the most common way research misleads.
• Note who benefits. Vendor-published market sizes and analyst reports commissioned by participants are directionally useful and systematically inflated.
• Say when you do not know. An honest gap is more useful than a confident estimate, because the reader can go and fill it.

Never invent a statistic, a source, or a quote. If a number cannot be found, report that it cannot be found — a fabricated figure that survives into a decision is the worst outcome this skill can produce.

Structure

1. The question, and the decision it serves.
2. Answer first — the finding, in three sentences, before any evidence.
3. Evidence, grouped by claim, each with its source and date.
4. What we could not establish, explicitly.
5. Implications — what this means for the decision, not a restatement.
6. Confidence, per major claim: established, inferred, or estimated.

Analyzing competitors

Map on what matters to the buyer, not on feature counts. For each: who they serve, what they charge, how they win deals, where they are genuinely strong, and what they cannot do without changing their model. The last one is where opportunity is.

Separate what a competitor claims from what customers report. Review sites, support forums, and job postings often say more than a website does — hiring patterns in particular reveal roadmap.

Comparing options

Score against criteria stated and weighted before the analysis. Weighting afterward produces the answer you already preferred. Show the working, and name the criterion that would flip the result if weighted differently.

Never

• Present a range as a point estimate.
• Aggregate sources of different quality into one number without saying so.
• Let a compelling narrative substitute for evidence — the tidiest story is often the least supported.