A BETTER WAY TO SHARE THE WORK
Turn client research into a decision brief, not a longer deck
Your client hired you to help them choose. Make the choice, the reasons, and the tradeoffs easier to see than the volume of research behind them.
New to creating with an agent? The request will guide it through the task. Bring your notes; you don’t need to write HTML.
How do I turn research into a client decision brief?
Define the decision and the client's criteria first. Give an agent your evidence, constraints, and viable options, then ask for a concise recommendation with alternatives and unresolved questions. Share a reviewed HTML brief that keeps the argument up front and the supporting research close by.
01 / SEE THE DIFFERENCE
A pilot choice with an explicit tradeoff
An illustrative consultant compares two service pilots for a client whose stated priority is learning from existing customers with limited delivery capacity.
A long presentation describes customer interviews, market segments, possible features, and several implementation approaches, without naming the choice required.
- Decision
- Choose the first service pilot: an onboarding review for current customers or a new service aimed at a different segment.
- Recommendation
- Start with the onboarding review because it fits the stated learning goal and uses the current customer channel.
- Tradeoff
- This choice offers less evidence about demand outside the existing customer base.
- Evidence gap
- The supplied interviews establish current-customer problems, not willingness to pay for the new service.
- Change condition
- Revisit the recommendation if reaching a new segment becomes the primary objective or stronger external demand evidence becomes available.
Open a complete fictional HTML example, with its source notes →
Create my client decision brief02 / MAKE IT YOURSELF
Start with the evidence. Shape the page around the reader.
Write the decision in one sentence
Use a concrete question such as 'Which pilot should we fund this quarter?' rather than a broad topic such as 'Market opportunities.' Specify who decides and what is outside scope. The brief should make one choice easier, not pretend to resolve the entire business strategy.
Agree on the criteria before comparing
Ask the agent to organize the client's stated criteria, such as delivery effort, customer relevance, and reversibility. Do not let it invent weights to produce a tidy winner. If priorities conflict or are missing, show how different priorities could lead to different recommendations.
Build the argument and its limits
Give each option the same questions: what it achieves, what it costs or displaces, what evidence supports it, and what remains unknown. Separate observations from judgment. Include what would change the recommendation so the client can see whether a new fact is decisive or merely interesting.
Publish a brief with a research appendix
Lead with the recommendation and the choice required. Follow with a fair comparison, then evidence and open questions. Generate static HTML using your saved style if available. Review the reasoning and permissions before sharing; confidential source documents should not become public merely because the summary is polished.
Adapt this to your work
Keep the same approach. Change the inputs and review checks for the job you need.
A strategy choice brief
When the job is choosing a direction, use the existing decision structure: evidence, alternatives, tradeoffs, assumptions, non-goals and what would trigger reconsideration. A proposed focus is not an approved strategy or a promise of growth.
Fictional source notes: Fictional team has capacity for one pilot. Its stated priority is learning from existing teams. Supplied interviews identify onboarding friction in that group; there is no evidence of willingness to pay in a new segment. Leadership has not approved a focus.
A clearer result: Propose an existing-team onboarding pilot because it fits the stated learning priority. Name expansion into a new segment as outside this pilot, not permanently ruled out. Reconsider if the priority changes or credible new-segment evidence arrives. Approval remains pending.
The matching instructions are included in the creation request below; your agent should use them only when relevant.
03 / TRY THIS PROMPT
Copy this into your agent. Add your source material.
Use the conversation where you already did the work, or start one with your notes. Replace the placeholders and supply any missing context; only attach information you are allowed to share with your agent.
Get the ready-to-copy creation request for guided questions, this task, and a draft review before anything is published.
Turn my supplied research into a decision brief for [client audience] answering [specific decision]. Use the client's stated criteria and constraints, not invented scoring weights. Lead with the recommended option and a concise rationale. Compare the viable alternatives fairly, including the status quo when relevant. Distinguish sourced observations, assumptions, professional judgment, and unknowns. Explain the main tradeoff and what new evidence would change the recommendation. Preserve source links and dates, and flag unsupported claims rather than filling gaps. Put detailed research below the core argument. Create readable static HTML in my saved artifact style if available, without scripts or forms. Identify confidential content and show me the draft for factual, reasoning, and access review before any publication. If this is a strategy choice brief, preserve the stated objective, alternatives, explicit non-goals, assumptions and reconsideration triggers. Do not infer strategy approval or claim growth outcomes from interview evidence. Keep the recommendation conditional on the stated priorities.
04 / BEFORE YOU SEND
A polished page still needs your judgment.
- Does the brief answer the decision the client actually owns, within the agreed scope?
- Can each factual claim be traced to supplied evidence without overstating what that evidence establishes?
- Are alternatives compared on the same criteria, with costs and limitations visible for the recommended option too?
- Are confidential findings, quotes, and linked documents appropriate for every intended recipient?
When HTML fits
Use an HTML brief for an asynchronous decision that benefits from a short opening, a structured comparison, and a deeper evidence section. Readers can choose how much detail they need.
When another format fits better
Keep a facilitated workshop when the client has not agreed on the decision or criteria. A polished page cannot resolve unspoken disagreement, and it should not disguise uncertainty as consensus.
FROM DRAFT TO A LINK
Make it clear. Make it yours. Then share it.
Keep creating and revising in the agent you already use. With a compatible connection, share/artifacts publishes the reviewed HTML so you do not have to rebuild it in another editor. Ask your agent to use your saved artifact style for headings, color, and tone; review the result before sending it.
Choose who should be able to open the page and verify the returned link. For corrections to the same deliverable, update the existing artifact without changing its link. Publish a separate artifact when the old edition needs to remain available.
These are static pages, not live apps: no scripts, forms, or automatic data refresh. Source collection and scheduling depend on your agent and its available tools, not on share/artifacts.
Make this with my agentQuestions before you start
Does every decision brief need a recommendation?
Usually a clear recommendation helps, but insufficient evidence is a legitimate outcome. Recommend a specific evidence-gathering step when the information cannot support a choice. Explain what it should establish and how it affects the decision.
Should the agent score the options?
Only use scores when the criteria, scale, and weights are meaningful and approved. Otherwise a numerical total can conceal subjective choices. A plain comparison with explicit tradeoffs may be more honest and easier for the client to challenge.
Can a brief replace the final client presentation?
It can replace some read-ahead or recap material. Use a presentation when a live conversation is part of the work. The brief can then preserve the argument and evidence after the meeting without requiring readers to reconstruct your spoken explanation.