dvcrn Desk Research
Execute this workflow for any desk-research request.
0) Load methodology checklist (first)
Read references/methodology.md, references/deep-writing-patterns.md, and references/quality-checklist.md and apply all as guardrails.
1) Define the research brief
Write 4 lines before searching:
- Research question (1 sentence)
- Scope (time, geography, industry)
- Must-answer sub-questions (3-6 bullets)
- Output format needed by user
If the question is vague, propose assumptions explicitly and continue.
2) Build a source plan
Collect evidence in this priority order:
- Primary/official sources (government, regulator, company filings, product docs)
- Reputable secondary analysis (major research firms, established media)
- Community signals (forums/social) only as supporting evidence
Require at least 2 independent sources for every key claim.
3) Gather evidence fast
For each sub-question:
- Find 3-8 candidate sources
- Keep the highest-signal sources
- Extract only claim + evidence + date + link
Reject sources that are undated, anonymous, or purely opinionated unless the user asked for sentiment.
4) Score source reliability
Tag each source:
- A = official primary source
- B = credible secondary source
- C = weak/indicative source
When claims conflict, prefer newer A/B sources and explicitly note uncertainty.
5) Synthesize insights
Convert notes into:
- Facts (well-supported)
- Interpretations (reasoned but inferential)
- Unknowns (gaps needing validation)
Never present interpretation as fact.
5.5) Deepening loop (mandatory)
Before final delivery, run at least 2 rounds of self-questioning:
Round A — Coverage challenge
- What did I miss by source type, time window, or geography?
- Which category/conclusion is over-dependent on one source?
- What contradicts my current conclusion?
Round B — Decision challenge
- If this conclusion is wrong, what evidence would prove it wrong?
- Which part is descriptive but not decision-useful?
- What next data pull would most change the recommendation?
After each round, update findings and confidence.
6) Deliver in concise structure
Use this exact section order:
- Core Questions (2 questions)
- One-sentence Verdict
- Executive Summary (5-8 bullets)
- Key Findings by sub-question (with metric anchors)
- Evidence Table (claim | source | date | reliability)
- Confidence tags (High/Medium/Low per major claim)
- Risks / Uncertainty
- What would falsify this conclusion
- Next Verification Steps / Todo
For output shape and compact template, use references/output-template.md.
7) Quality bar before sending
Check all items:
- Every major claim has source/date
- No single-source critical claim
- Time/geography scope matches user ask
- Clear separation of fact vs interpretation
- Actionable takeaway included
- Each promising case uses the full 9-part deep case framework
- Each promising case includes one final case-summary paragraph: what it does / who pays / business model / why pay
- Each key section ends with decision implication (so-what)
8) Case-depth hard rule (for startup/case research)
When the task is startup/use-case research, apply these hard requirements:
- For each promising case, collect at least 3 website evidence snippets (feature/pricing/use-flow)
- Add at least 1 metric anchor from trusted dataset (revenue/MRR/growth)
- Include at least 1 risk point and 1 falsification condition
- Do not submit if any case is only descriptive without judgment