research-to-brief

name	research-to-brief
description	Folds any pile of research — pasted notes, files, transcripts, reports — into the right sections of marketing-brief.md, graded T1 to T3 for confidence, with contradictions surfaced instead of averaged away. Use whenever research exists anywhere other than the brief.
argument-hint	[paste the research or point to the files]

Research to Brief — one home for what you know

Research that lives in scattered documents might as well not exist: the next campaign gets built from memory and vibes regardless. The brief is the department's single memory, and this skill is its intake valve — everything decision-relevant gets extracted, graded, routed to its section, and reconciled with what is already there.

Inputs

• The research, in any form — pasted text, file paths, folders, notes: $ARGUMENTS
• The whole current marketing-brief.md, read end to end first, so new material lands as an update rather than a duplicate. If no brief exists, run /marketing:onboard to create the skeleton, then return here.

Do this

1. List the sources with dates. Recency matters at grading time, and every finding must trace back to one of them.
2. Extract every decision-relevant finding — a claim, a number, a verbatim quote, a pattern — and route each to its brief section: the business, the market, the customer (ICP, avatar, pains, desires, objections, language bank), the competitors, positioning & message, the offer, channels & funnel, voice, numbers that matter. A finding can feed two sections; cross-reference rather than duplicate.
3. Grade each finding on the brief's own scale:
   • T1 sourced — a customer said or did it, or a measured result.
   • T2 reasoned estimate — credible secondhand: review mining, reports, competitor observation.
   • T3 guess — inference, or a single anecdote doing a lot of work. Write the grade inline with the finding.
4. Surface contradictions. Where new findings disagree with the brief or with each other, do not overwrite and do not average — log both versions in a "contradictions to resolve" block, each with the one input that would settle it.
5. Merge into marketing-brief.md. Update sections in place, date-stamp the pass, and keep customer quotes verbatim in the language bank. An existing entry is replaced only when the new evidence grade is equal or better — a T3 never overwrites a T1.
6. Report the delta: what was added to which section, what got upgraded or downgraded, the contradictions raised, and the single research task that would most improve the brief's weakest section.

Output

An updated marketing-brief.md, plus a change log in chat: findings added per section with grades, contradictions to resolve, and the one next research task. The brief's T3-marked sections remain the visible research backlog.

Rules

• Verbatim beats paraphrase. Customer language enters the language bank exactly as spoken — the copy skills depend on it.
• Grade honestly. A brief full of T3 guesses dressed as T1 facts briefs the whole department into fiction.
• Contradictions are findings. Averaging two conflicting numbers destroys both.
• Nothing enters without a source. "Everyone knows" is not a source.
• Date-stamp every pass. An undated finding cannot be superseded cleanly, and stale certainty is worse than fresh doubt.