3.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

Findings Report Template

Standard structure for presenting research findings.

Full Report Template

## Research Summary

{ 1-2 sentence answer to research question }

## Key Findings

1. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}
2. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}
3. **{FINDING}** — evidence: {SOURCE}

## Comparison (if applicable)

| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|
| { criterion } | { value } | { value } | { value } |

## Recommendation

### Primary: {Option Name}

**Rationale**: { detailed reasoning with evidence }

**Confidence**: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} — { explanation }

### Alternatives

- **{Option B}** — choose when { condition }
- **{Option C}** — choose when { condition }

## Confidence Assessment

Overall: {BAR} {PERCENTAGE}%

**High confidence areas**:
- { area } — { reason }

**Lower confidence areas**:
- { area } — { reason }

## Sources

- [Source 1](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }
- [Source 2](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }
- [Source 3](url) — tier {N}, { brief description }

## Caveats

- { uncertainty or limitation }
- { assumption made }
- { gap in research }

Compact Report Template

For smaller findings or sub-reports.

## {Topic}

**Finding**: { main conclusion }

**Evidence**:
- { source 1 }: { key point }
- { source 2 }: { key point }

**Confidence**: { level } — { brief rationale }

{ caveat if applicable }

Section Guidelines

Research Summary

Lead with the answer
1-2 sentences maximum
Make it actionable

Good: "Use Hono for new API projects; it offers 4x better performance than Express with TypeScript-first design."

Bad: "This report examines various web frameworks and their characteristics."

Key Findings

Number findings for reference
Each finding = one clear statement
Always cite source
Order by importance or logical flow

Comparison

Use feature matrix for side-by-side
Highlight standout values
Include only decision-relevant criteria
See comparison-methods.md

Recommendation

State primary recommendation clearly
Explain why (rationale with evidence)
Include confidence level
Provide alternatives with conditions

Confidence Assessment

Use visual confidence bars:

High:     (90-100%)
Moderate: (60-89%)
Low:      (below 60%)

Explain what drives confidence up or down.

Sources

List all cited sources
Include tier assessment
Provide direct links
See source-tiers.md

Caveats

Include when:

Research has gaps
Sources conflict
Time constraints limited depth
Findings are context-dependent

Use indicator for visibility.

Formatting Conventions

Emphasis

Bold for key terms and findings
code for technical terms
Links for sources

Visual Indicators

HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — confidence levels
Progress bars for visual confidence
— caveats and warnings
Tables for comparisons

Citations

Inline: [Source Name](url) Reference style: See Sources section at end

Quality Checklist

Before delivering findings:

Summary answers the question directly
All findings have source citations
Confidence level stated with rationale
Caveats section present if uncertainty exists
Sources include tier assessment
Recommendation is actionable
Alternatives provided with conditions

3.4 KiB Raw Blame History