Brief Template
markdown
# <Question, restated as a title>**Bottom line:** <the direct answer, 1-3 sentences, stated plainly>**Confidence:** High (multiple independent A/B sources agree) | Medium (somecorroboration, or C-grade sources) | Low (single source, or sources disagree)## Context<1 short paragraph: why this question matters / what prompted it, if relevant>## Findings### <Sub-question 1, from the decomposition><Prose answer with inline citations, e.g. "X reduces cold-start latency by roughly40% in typical configurations [1][2]." Distinguish well-corroborated claims fromsingle-source ones in the wording itself, not just the confidence line above.>### <Sub-question 2>...## Where sources disagree<If applicable — state each position and its basis, don't arbitrate artificially. Omit this section entirely if sources were in agreement.>## What we couldn't confirm<Claims that came up but couldn't be adequately sourced — worth naming so the reader knows what's still open, rather than silently omitting them. Omit this section if nothing applies.>## Sources1. [Title/description](url) — <type: primary/secondary>, <grade>, <date>2. ...Notes on filling it out
- The "Bottom line" is written last but read first — don't let it drift from what the Findings section actually supports.
- Every source in the list should be graded per
source-grading.md; the grade doesn't need to appear in the reader-facing brief itself unless the audience wants it, but it must exist in your working ledger. - Keep prose tight — a brief is not a literature review. If a finding needs more than a paragraph, it's a sign the sub-question should be split further.