Research Topic

Deep Topic Research

Conduct structured research that produces actionable intelligence, not just information dumps. The goal is synthesis — connecting dots that aren't obvious.

Core Method: The Diamond Framework

        Diverge (Gather)
       /                \
      /                  \
     /    Wide Search     \
    /                      \
   /________________________\
   \                        /
    \   Filter & Verify    /
     \                    /
      \   Synthesize     /
       \                /
        Converge (Insight)

1. Diverge — Cast a wide net across multiple angles
2. Filter — Separate signal from noise, verify claims
3. Synthesize — Connect patterns, identify insights
4. Converge — Deliver clear conclusions with confidence levels

Research Angles

For any topic, investigate from these 6 angles:

Research Workflow

Phase 1: Scope Definition

Before searching, define:

• Core question: What exactly are we trying to answer?
• Depth level: Overview / Working knowledge / Expert analysis
• Time frame: Current state / Historical / Forward-looking
• Audience: Who will read this and what decisions will they make?

Phase 2: Wide Search

Run parallel searches across multiple dimensions:

Primary searches (run in parallel):
- "[Topic] overview 2025"
- "[Topic] latest developments"
- "[Topic] research papers"
- "[Topic] expert analysis"
- "[Topic] criticism challenges"
- "[Topic] vs alternatives comparison"
- "[Topic] future predictions trends"

Phase 3: Source Evaluation

Rate each source on credibility:

Phase 4: Cross-Reference

• Every major claim needs 2+ independent sources
• Flag single-source claims as [UNVERIFIED]
• Note contradictions between sources explicitly
• Distinguish between facts, expert opinions, and speculation

Phase 5: Synthesis

• Identify patterns across sources
• Note what multiple experts agree on (consensus)
• Note where experts disagree (open questions)
• Connect to adjacent topics the user might not have considered
• Form original insights from the combination of sources

Language Rules

• Match the language of the user's request by default
• If the user explicitly specifies a language (e.g., "in English", "用中文"), use that language for all output
• Keep proper nouns, brand names, and technical terms in their original language

Output Structure

Executive Summary Format (Default)

# Research Report: [Topic]

## Executive Summary
[3-5 sentences: What this is, why it matters, key finding]

## Key Findings

### 1. [Finding Title]
[2-3 paragraphs with evidence]
- **Evidence**: [Data/source]
- **Confidence**: High / Medium / Low
- **Implication**: [So what?]

### 2. [Finding Title]
...

### 3. [Finding Title]
...

## Landscape Analysis
[Who are the key players? What are the competing approaches?]

## Open Questions
- [What we still don't know]
- [Where experts disagree]
- [What needs more investigation]

## Timeline
- [Key historical milestones]
- [Recent developments]
- [Expected future events]

## Recommendations
[Based on findings, what should the reader do?]

## Sources
[Numbered list with URLs, organized by tier]

---
📊 Research depth: [Overview / Working Knowledge / Expert]
🔍 Sources consulted: [N]
⚠️ Confidence level: [High / Medium / Low]

Comparison Format (for "X vs Y" questions)

# [X] vs [Y]: Research Report

## Quick Verdict
[One paragraph: which is better for what use case]

## Comparison Matrix

| Dimension | [X] | [Y] | Winner |
|-----------|-----|-----|--------|
| [Dim 1]   |     |     |        |
| [Dim 2]   |     |     |        |
...

## Detailed Analysis
### [Dimension 1]
[Deep comparison with evidence]

## When to Choose [X]
[Specific scenarios]

## When to Choose [Y]
[Specific scenarios]

Confidence Calibration

Be explicit about certainty levels:

Research Quality Rules

1. No unsourced claims — every factual statement links to a source
2. Distinguish fact from opinion — "X happened" vs "Expert Y believes..."
3. Include counter-arguments — steelman the opposing view
4. Recency matters — flag if best available data is outdated
5. Quantify when possible — "significant growth" → "47% YoY growth"
6. Acknowledge gaps — what you couldn't find is as important as what you found

Anti-Patterns

• Confirmation bias — only searching for evidence that supports a hypothesis
• Source laundering — multiple articles citing the same original source ≠ independent verification
• Recency bias — assuming the latest article is the most accurate
• Authority bias — big company said it ≠ it's true
• Completeness theater — listing 50 sources when 10 high-quality ones would be better
• Analysis paralysis — researching forever instead of delivering actionable findings

Quick Checklist

1. Is the core question clearly defined?
2. Did I search from multiple angles (not just one framing)?
3. Are major claims supported by 2+ independent sources?
4. Did I include counter-arguments and open questions?
5. Is every finding tagged with a confidence level?
6. Does the report end with actionable recommendations?
7. Would someone make a better decision after reading this?