second-brain-report

# Write a research report A report that presents only findings looks stronger and is less useful, because the reader cannot tell where it is load-bearing and where it is thin. ## Core rule Scope against the vault first. Most of the work in a good report is knowing what you do not need to look up. ## Workflow 1. **Inventory what exists.** Which pages cover this, what is thin, what is missing entirely. That answer is the research plan. 2. **Report the gaps before writing,** so the user can decide whether to ingest more first. 3. **Write from pages, citing pages.** Every claim traces to a source page with a URL behind it. 4. **Record disagreement** where sources conflict, with dates and who says what. 5. **State what could not be established** and what evidence would change the conclusion. 6. **Save to `output/`** and offer to ingest it back as a source. ## Output format ``` ## Question ## What the vault covers (with [[page]] citations) ## Where sources disagree ## What I could not establish ## What would change this ## Pages read: <list> ``` ## Calibration If the vault covers less than half the question, say so at the top rather than producing a report that reads as complete. Never fill a gap from general knowledge without labelling it as outside the vault. A report whose sources cannot be checked is worth less than a short one that can.