SAME INFORMATION. A DIFFERENT WAY TO SHARE IT.

A client brief that turns options into a decision

Replace a scattered proposal with one page showing the recommendation, tradeoffs, costs, and approval needed.

Fictional worked example · Not a published customer artifact.

Make this with my agent See the complete result ↓

Your agent can use your own context or help you try the fictional sample. Review a draft first; nothing is published without your approval.

01 / The familiar format

You could send this as an email.

A fictional email with the same underlying facts. Read it here, then compare how the HTML version presents the information.

Email · Fictional example

Cedar Studio — enquiry workflow options for September 11

Hi Robin,

Here are the two options for reducing manual handling of inbound project enquiries, as of September 7, 2026. Your estimate is about 5 staff hours a week today, though that is not time-tracked and we have no conversion baseline.

Option A repairs the existing enquiry form: an estimated $2,000 one-time cost and 1 week after approval. It keeps the familiar workflow, but manual triage remains. Option B adds a guided enquiry flow and routing rules: an estimated $4,500 and 3 weeks after approval. It gives us better structured inputs, but requires staff training and validation of the routing rules.

Both fit the $5,000 budget ceiling before exclusions. Neither is a signed quote; both exclude tax and ongoing maintenance. I recommend B if you can assign a routing owner, because it addresses manual triage. We do not yet have measured savings or conversion lift.

Please choose A or B by September 11, 2026, and name the routing owner if you choose B. No option has been approved. Actual time saved, maintenance cost, tax, ownership and conversion impact remain unknown. After approval, we should confirm scope and exclusions, benchmark handling time, and validate routing with staff before launch.

Alex

02 / The HTML version

Same information. See what needs your attention.

This is the complete static HTML example, not a screenshot. Scroll inside the preview to read it all. It has no live data, scripts, forms, or external resources.

Inspect the complete HTML source

This is the authored source for the example. The preview above passes through our HTML sanitizer before rendering in an isolated frame.

<!doctype html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Cedar Studio · Enquiry workflow decision</title><style>
*{box-sizing:border-box}html{color-scheme:light}body{margin:0;background:#faf8f2;color:#172520;font:17px/1.65 system-ui,sans-serif}main{max-width:960px;margin:auto;padding:clamp(20px,5vw,64px)}h1,h2,h3,p{margin:0 0 18px}h1{font:500 clamp(32px,5vw,58px)/1.12 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.025em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h2{font:500 29px/1.25 Georgia,serif}h3{font-size:18px;line-height:1.4}.label{font:700 12px/1.5 system-ui,sans-serif;letter-spacing:.12em;text-transform:uppercase}.intro{font-size:20px}.lead{background:#153e32;color:#fff;padding:28px;margin:28px 0}.lead p:last-child{margin:0}.grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(100%,220px),1fr));gap:20px;margin:28px 0}.card{background:#fff;border:1px solid #cad3c9;padding:24px}.metric{font:500 42px/1.1 Georgia,serif;display:block;margin-bottom:12px}section{margin:36px 0}ul,ol{padding-left:22px}li{margin-bottom:12px}.note{color:#40584d;font-size:14px}footer{border-top:1px solid #bac8bf;padding-top:24px;margin-top:40px;font-size:14px}.decision{background:#f7f4ed;color:#282238}.decision .lead{background:#332753}.decision .card{border-color:#d6ccdf}.decision .note{color:#5d4e6d}.meeting{background:#f5f8fc;color:#142c48}.meeting .lead{background:#163e69}.meeting .card{border-color:#bccde0}.meeting .note{color:#3d5673}@media print{body{background:white}.card,.lead{break-inside:avoid}}
</style></head><body class="decision"><main><header><p class="label">Cedar Studio / Decision brief / September 7, 2026</p><h1>Fix the form—or fix the handoff?</h1><p class="intro">Choose how to reduce manual work on inbound project enquiries. The recommendation depends on who can own routing.</p><p class="note">Alex → Robin, project sponsor</p></header>
<aside class="lead"><p class="label">Recommendation · conditional</p><h2>Choose the guided flow if a routing owner is available.</h2><p>Option B addresses manual triage and is within the $5,000 ceiling before tax and maintenance. Expected benefits still need measurement.</p></aside>
<section><h2>Compare the two paths</h2><div class="grid"><article class="card"><p class="label">Option A</p><h3>Repair the existing form</h3><span class="metric">$2,000</span><p><strong>Estimated delivery:</strong> 1 week after approval.</p><p><strong>Upside:</strong> a familiar workflow.</p><p><strong>Tradeoff:</strong> manual triage remains.</p></article><article class="card"><p class="label">Option B · recommended with an owner</p><h3>Guided enquiries + routing rules</h3><span class="metric">$4,500</span><p><strong>Estimated delivery:</strong> 3 weeks after approval.</p><p><strong>Upside:</strong> better structured inputs.</p><p><strong>Tradeoff:</strong> staff training and routing validation required.</p></article></div><p class="note">Estimates are one-time, exclude tax and ongoing maintenance, and are not signed quotes.</p></section>
<section><h2>What we know—and what we don’t</h2><p>Robin estimates about 5 staff hours per week on enquiry handling. This is not time-tracked. We have no conversion baseline and no measured savings.</p><p>Maintenance cost, tax, routing ownership, and conversion impact are still unknown.</p></section>
<section class="card"><p class="label">Robin’s decision · due September 11, 2026</p><h2>Choose A or B. If B, name the owner.</h2><p>No option has been approved. If no routing owner is available, revisit the conditional recommendation rather than treating B as a commitment.</p></section>
<section><h2>After approval</h2><ol><li>Confirm scope, tax, and maintenance exclusions.</li><li>Benchmark the current handling time.</li><li>Validate routing with staff before launch.</li></ol><p class="note">Source: the fictional client notes accompanying this example.</p></section><footer>Fictional worked example by share/artifacts. Names, dates, and figures are invented for demonstration. Static snapshot; no live data or automatic updates.</footer></main></body></html>

Make the next one about your work.

Take the task to your agent. We provide a request with the goal, example, and checks. Copy it into the conversation where your context lives.
Supply only what is missing. Use material your agent is authorized to access. Don’t substitute the example’s invented facts for your own.
Review a draft before sharing. Check facts, readability, and sensitive information. Publishing and choosing who can open it are separate, explicit decisions.

Make this with my agent

No publishing connection is needed for an initial local draft. Your agent needs to be able to create an HTML file; preview and connection support vary by client.