← Back to the guide

A synthesis that does not invent a universal problem

Make this with my agent

Fictional worked example · Not a published customer artifact. You review the draft; nothing is published without your approval.

What we started withThe same facts, as a wiki page

Fictional team wiki

Birch Reports — what to investigate next

Question and scope

Snapshot September 7, 2026. Owner: Ash. Question: what should we investigate to make reports easier to use? This covers selected sources A and B only, not an exhaustive search or systematic review.

Source A — First-time interpretation

A: in a September 2 session, three of five first-time volunteers asked what a label meant while interpreting a synthetic sample report. This small convenience group is not representative of all users. Timing, completion and satisfaction were not measured in the supplied record.

Source B — Finding saved work

B: five of eight selected support notes from September 1–5 mention difficulty finding a saved report. These concern existing-work retrieval, not first-time interpretation. Selection was not random, and note counts are not unique-user counts.

Interpretation

Overlap in participants or events is unknown. Tasks, methods and audiences differ; combining counts would not establish a population rate. Ash proposes separate investigation of newcomer terminology and existing-user retrieval. This is a proposed direction, not a proven redesign or universal main problem.

Decision and privacy

No redesign, staffing or research date is approved. The product team decides in its research planning process. No participant identities, verbatim quotes or private links are supplied.

Inspect the HTMLOne self-contained file

The example is sanitized and isolated from this site. No scripts, forms, or live data.

<!doctype html><html lang="en"><head><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"><title>Birch Reports · Research synthesis</title><style>
*{box-sizing:border-box}html{color-scheme:light}body{margin:0;background:#f5f8fc;color:#182e46;font:17px/1.65 system-ui,sans-serif}main{max-width:1000px;margin:auto;padding:clamp(20px,5vw,64px)}h1,h2,h3,p{margin:0 0 18px}h1{font:500 clamp(32px,5vw,58px)/1.14 Georgia,serif;letter-spacing:-.025em;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h2{font:500 29px/1.3 Georgia,serif;overflow-wrap:anywhere}h3{font-size:19px;line-height:1.4}.label{font:700 12px/1.6 system-ui,sans-serif;letter-spacing:.08em;text-transform:uppercase}.intro{font-size:20px}.lead{background:#23486b;color:white;padding:24px;margin:28px 0}.lead p:last-child{margin:0}.grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(auto-fit,minmax(min(100%,230px),1fr));gap:20px;margin:24px 0}.card{background:white;border:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:24px}.metric{font:500 38px/1.2 Georgia,serif;display:block;margin-bottom:12px}section{margin:36px 0}ul,ol{padding-left:22px}li{margin-bottom:12px}.note{font-size:14px}.warning{border-left:5px solid #956118;padding-left:20px}a{color:inherit;text-underline-offset:4px}a:focus-visible,summary:focus-visible{outline:3px solid #956118;outline-offset:4px}table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;table-layout:fixed;font-size:15px}th,td{text-align:left;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding:12px 8px;overflow-wrap:anywhere}caption{text-align:left;font-weight:700;padding:12px 0}pre,code{white-space:pre-wrap;overflow-wrap:anywhere}footer{border-top:1px solid #bbc5c4;padding-top:24px;margin-top:40px;font-size:14px}@media(max-width:480px){th,td{padding:10px 4px;font-size:14px}}@media print{body{background:white}.card,.lead{break-inside:avoid}h2,h3{break-after:avoid}}
</style></head><body><main><header><p class="label">Fictional two-source synthesis / September 7, 2026 / Owner Ash</p><h1>Two moments of confusion. Two questions to test.</h1><p class="intro">What should Birch Reports investigate next? The supplied evidence points to different tasks—not one proven universal problem.</p></header><section class="lead"><h2>Proposed direction, not an approved redesign</h2><p>Investigate terminology with newcomers and report retrieval with existing users separately. No staffing or research date is approved.</p></section><section><h2>Keep each finding beside its context</h2><div class="grid"><article class="card"><p class="label">Source A / September 2</p><h3>Interpreting a first report</h3><p>Three of five first-time volunteers asked what a report label meant while using a synthetic sample.</p><p class="note">Small convenience group; not representative. No timing, completion-rate or satisfaction measure supplied.</p></article><article class="card"><p class="label">Source B / September 1–5</p><h3>Finding saved work</h3><p>Five of eight selected support notes from existing users mention finding a saved report.</p><p class="note">Selected notes, not random sampling or unique-user counts. Different task from Source A.</p></article></div></section><section class="warning"><h2>Do not combine these into a rate.</h2><p>Methods, audiences and tasks differ. Participant or event overlap is unknown. Adding the counts would not establish how common either problem is across the customer population.</p></section><section><h2>What this synthesis leaves open</h2><p>Whether clearer terminology or changed retrieval would help needs further investigation. The product team must decide the next research step in its existing planning process.</p><p class="note">Sources A and B are the entire supplied set. This is not a systematic review. No participant identities or private source links are included.</p></section><footer>Fictional worked example by share/artifacts. Names, dates, figures and records are invented for demonstration. Static snapshot; no live data or automatic updates.</footer></main></body></html>