SCOPE

You are a senior research strategist tasked with designing a comprehensive research project to uncover the underlying reasons for customer churn.

Develop a detailed plan that walks through the following logical flow: first describe the current business context and why churn analysis is critical; then list any known limitations such as data availability, budget, timeline, or stakeholder constraints; next define clear, measurable research objectives; after that outline a step‑by‑step research plan covering methodology, data sources, sampling, analytical techniques (e.g., cohort analysis, churn modeling), and deliverables; finally specify how the results will be evaluated and reported to inform decision‑making.

The output should be a structured document of approximately 800 words, using clear headings for each section (no labels of the underlying framework). Include a concise bullet‑point summary of key assumptions at the end, and pose up to three clarifying questions to fill critical gaps before finalizing the plan.

Quality criteria:
1. Logical coherence across sections, ensuring each part builds on the previous one.
2. Practical feasibility given typical SaaS churn research constraints.
3. Inclusion of at least two quantitative analysis techniques relevant to churn (e.g., cohort retention curves, LTV‑CAC assessment).

[DATA_SOURCES]: specify the types of customer data (e.g., usage logs, survey responses, billing records) you have or need.
[STAKEHOLDER_GROUP]: identify the primary audience for the research findings (e.g., product team, executive leadership).
[BUDGET_LIMIT]: indicate the maximum budget available for this research project.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a senior analyst tasked with creating a comprehensive evaluation of two vendor options.

First, describe the current situation, including the business need the vendors would address and any relevant background information.

Next, list all constraints that must be considered (e.g., budget limits, timeline, regulatory requirements, integration dependencies, [UNKNOWN: SPECIFIC TECHNICAL OR COMPLIANCE CONSTRAINTS]).

Then, define the objectives the evaluation must achieve (e.g., cost efficiency, scalability, risk mitigation, alignment with strategic goals).

After that, outline a step‑by‑step plan for gathering data, performing analysis, and comparing the vendors. Include any required financial modeling techniques such as SaaS unit‑economics calculations, cohort revenue retention, three‑statement linking, market sizing, valuation, and scenario modeling where appropriate.

Finally, specify the evaluation deliverables: a concise comparative matrix (max 10 rows, 5 columns) summarizing key metrics, a narrative summary (≈250 words) highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and a recommendation, and a brief risk assessment (≤150 words).

**Output format**
- Plain‑text sections in the order described above.
- Comparative matrix as a markdown table.
- Narrative summary and risk assessment as separate paragraphs.

**Quality criteria**
1. All analysis is grounded in established financial methodologies and clearly defines any assumptions.
2. The comparison is objective, using consistent metrics for both vendors.
3. The recommendation is justified by the data and aligns with the stated objectives.

**Boundary** – Do not include any vendor‑specific proprietary data that is not provided; limit all calculations to the information supplied or to reasonable assumptions you state explicitly.

If any critical details are missing, state your assumptions and ask up to three clarifying questions before completing the evaluation.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a market-analysis strategist.
Your client wants a detailed plan to evaluate their product pricing against rival offerings.

Develop a concise briefing that guides the analyst through the following logical flow: describe the current market context and the pricing challenge; list any known limitations such as data availability, budget, or timeline; define the specific outcomes the client expects from the pricing review; outline step-by-step actions to gather competitor price data, compare it, and derive insights; and finally propose criteria for judging the success of the analysis.

The deliverable should be a structured plan of approximately 410-550 words, using clear headings for each section (no more than five headings total). Include a short bullet list of the most critical data sources to consult, and a table template (markdown) with columns for competitor name, product tier, price point, and any noted pricing features.

Quality criteria:
1. Logical coherence across sections, each building on the previous one.
2. Practicality of the recommended data-collection methods given typical resource constraints.
3. Clear, measurable evaluation metrics for the final pricing analysis.

Exclude any assumptions about the client’s industry, target customers, or specific competitors unless the client provides them.

If any of the following details are unknown, insert a placeholder in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: brief hint]** and proceed:
- **[INDUSTRY: type of market]**
- **[TARGET CUSTOMERS: primary buyer segment]**
- **[KEY COMPETITORS: main rivals to benchmark]**
- **[PRICE METRICS: e.g., list price, discount tiers, subscription fees]**
- **[TIMEFRAME: period for completing the analysis]**

State any assumptions you make explicitly, and ask up to three clarifying questions to fill critical gaps before finalizing the plan.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

You are a senior business analyst tasked with creating a comprehensive feasibility study for entering a new market.

Develop the study by progressing through the following logical sections in order:

1. Describe the current market environment, competitive landscape, and internal capabilities relevant to the expansion.
2. Identify all critical constraints that could affect the project, including regulatory, financial, operational, and timeline factors.
3. Define clear, measurable objectives that the market entry should achieve (e.g., revenue targets, market share, brand positioning).
4. Outline a detailed plan covering market research methods, data collection, analytical techniques, and implementation steps. Incorporate appropriate quantitative methods such as power analysis, confidence intervals, cohort or funnel analysis, and causal inference where relevant.
5. Propose evaluation criteria and a monitoring framework to assess progress against the objectives, specifying key performance indicators and decision thresholds.

The deliverable should be a structured markdown document of **approximately 1,200–1,500 words**, using headings for each section and bullet points or tables where they improve clarity.

Quality criteria:
- Logical flow that naturally guides the reader through each stage.
- Use of precise business‑analysis terminology while briefly defining any technical concepts.
- Practical recommendations grounded in established analytical methods.

Exclude any discussion of unrelated markets, speculative technologies, or marketing copy.

If any essential details are unknown, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the study.

[MARKET: specify the target country or region]
[PRODUCT_OR_SERVICE: describe the offering to be introduced]
[TIMEFRAME: indicate the desired launch horizon]
[BUDGET: provide the approximate financial resources allocated]

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

You are a product management specialist tasked with designing a comprehensive post-launch review for a newly released product feature.

Create a structured plan that walks through the following elements in order:

1. Briefly describe the current situation, including the feature’s purpose and the context of its launch.
2. Identify any constraints that will shape the review (e.g., time limits, resource availability, data access).
3. Define clear objectives the review must achieve (e.g., assess adoption, uncover issues, inform next iteration).
4. Outline a step-by-step plan covering preparation, data collection, stakeholder interviews, analysis methods, and reporting.
5. Propose evaluation criteria and methods to judge the success of the review itself (e.g., completeness, actionable insights, stakeholder satisfaction).

The output should be a concise markdown document with headings for each of the five sections, using bullet points or short paragraphs as appropriate. Aim for **695-915 words total**.

Quality criteria:
- Logical flow that naturally guides the reader from context to evaluation.
- Practical, actionable steps that can be executed by a product team without additional resources.
- Clear, measurable objectives and evaluation metrics.

Exclude any proprietary templates or tools not mentioned by the user.

If any key details are missing, state your assumptions and ask up to three clarifying questions, such as:
- What is the name of the product and the specific feature under review?
- Which stakeholder groups should be involved in the interview phase?
- What primary metrics (e.g., usage, conversion, NPS) are available for analysis?

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

You are a research design specialist tasked with creating a rigorous comparative study of remote versus office work productivity.

Develop a comprehensive study plan that proceeds through the following logical stages:

1. **Context** – Briefly describe the current environment and motivation for comparing remote and office productivity.
2. **Limitations** – List any known constraints such as budget, timeline, data access, or ethical considerations.
3. **Aims** – Define the primary research question(s) and measurable objectives (e.g., detect a minimum X% difference in output).
4. **Methodology** – Propose the most suitable causal identification strategy (choose from RCT, difference‑in‑differences, regression discontinuity, instrumental variables, propensity‑score matching, or synthetic control) and justify the choice. Detail required identification assumptions, how you will control for observed and unobserved confounders, and the statistical power analysis (sample size, MDE, α = 0.05, power = 0.80). Specify effect‑size metrics (Cohen’s d, odds ratio, NNT, etc.) and discuss external validity considerations.
5. **Assessment** – Outline the evaluation plan, including data collection procedures, analytic steps, and criteria for interpreting results.

**Deliverable**: a structured markdown document (≈ 600 words) containing the five sections above, each with concise bullet points or short paragraphs as appropriate. Include a brief table summarizing key design choices (identification strategy, assumptions, sample size, effect‑size metric).

**Quality criteria**
- Logical coherence across sections; each step builds on the previous one.
- Explicit justification for methodological choices grounded in established empirical research practices.
- Clear, actionable recommendations for implementation.

**Boundary**: Do not propose any proprietary software tools or data sources; focus on methodological design only.

[POPULATION: specify the employee group (e.g., full‑time knowledge workers, sales staff, etc.)]
[PRODUCTIVITY METRIC: define how productivity will be measured (e.g., output units, task completion time, performance scores)]
[STUDY DURATION: indicate the planned observation period (e.g., 6 months, 1 year)]
[RESOURCE LIMITS: state any budget or staffing caps that could affect sample size or data collection]

If any of the placeholders above are unknown, state your assumptions clearly and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the design.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a content performance audit strategist.

Your client needs a comprehensive audit plan for their existing content assets.

Develop a detailed audit plan that walks through the current context, any limiting factors, the desired outcomes, the step‑by‑step methodology, and how success will be measured.

The plan should be written for a senior marketing manager who will oversee the audit.

Deliver the plan in a structured markdown document of approximately 800 words, using clear headings for each section and bullet points where appropriate.

Quality criteria:
- The methodology must be actionable, with specific tasks, responsible roles, and realistic timelines.
- All recommended metrics and tools should be appropriate for digital content performance analysis.
- The evaluation criteria should enable the manager to assess audit completeness and impact.

Exclude any discussion of unrelated marketing activities or brand strategy.

If any of the following details are unknown, insert a placeholder in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: brief hint]** and proceed:
- **[CONTENT TYPE]**: the primary formats of content to be audited (e.g., blog posts, videos, social posts).
- **[AUDIT FREQUENCY]**: how often the audit should be repeated (e.g., quarterly, annually).
- **[KEY METRICS]**: the performance indicators the client cares about (e.g., traffic, engagement, conversion).
- **[TEAM SIZE]**: number of people available to conduct the audit.

State any assumptions you make and ask up to three clarifying questions before finalizing the plan.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a senior M&A analyst tasked with creating a comprehensive assessment of a potential acquisition.

Your analysis should follow a logical, step‑by‑step flow that naturally reflects the Situation‑Constraints‑Objectives‑Plan‑Evaluation structure without naming it.

1. **Context** – Briefly describe the current strategic situation prompting the acquisition, including the acquiring company’s market position and the target’s core business.
2. **Limitations** – List the key constraints that will shape the deal (e.g., financial caps, regulatory hurdles, integration capacity).
3. **Goals** – Define the specific objectives the acquisition must achieve (e.g., revenue growth, technology access, market entry).
4. **Approach** – Outline a detailed plan covering:
   - Initial due‑diligence steps and data sources
   - Evaluation criteria and metrics to be applied (financial, strategic, cultural)
   - Timeline and major milestones
   - Risk‑mitigation actions
5. **Assessment** – Provide a concise evaluation framework that scores the target against the objectives and constraints, and recommends a go/no‑go decision with justification.

**Deliverable**: a structured report in markdown, using clear headings for each of the five sections above, followed by a summary table (max 8 rows × 4 columns) that captures the key findings and the final recommendation. The entire output should be between **1,200 and 1,500 words**.

**Quality criteria**
- Insightful analysis grounded in realistic M&A best practices.
- Transparent assumptions listed at the end of the report.
- Actionable recommendations with clear next steps.

**Boundaries** – Do not include detailed financial models, proprietary data, or legal contract language; focus on strategic assessment only.

[TARGET COMPANY: Provide the name and brief description of the company being considered for acquisition]
[ACQUIRING COMPANY: Provide the name and brief description of the acquiring firm]
[DEAL SIZE ESTIMATE: Specify the approximate transaction value or range]
[REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT: Identify any known jurisdictional or industry‑specific regulatory considerations]

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

If any bracketed detail above is left unfilled, choose a sensible value from the context, state that assumption in one line before you begin, and continue — do not ask for it and stop.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a senior usability research consultant.

The checkout flow you will study is for an e‑commerce website.

Your task is to produce a concise research plan that walks through the following elements in order:

1. **Context** – describe the current checkout situation, including the primary user group and any known pain points.
2. **Limitations** – list any constraints such as budget, timeline, sample‑size caps, or technical restrictions.
3. **Aims** – define clear research objectives (e.g., identify friction points, measure task success rate, uncover usability gaps).
4. **Methodology** – outline a step‑by‑step plan:
   - recruitment strategy and target sample size (include a brief power‑analysis note if a statistical test is planned)
   - test format (moderated remote, unmoderated click‑stream, etc.)
   - key tasks and scenarios to be observed
   - randomization or grouping approach, if applicable
   - any variance‑reduction techniques (e.g., CUPED) you intend to use
   - data collection instruments (think‑aloud, screen capture, post‑test questionnaire)
5. **Assessment** – specify how results will be evaluated, including metrics (success rate, time‑on‑task, error count), confidence‑interval reporting, and criteria for practical significance.

**Output**: a markdown document of approximately 350 words, using clear headings for each of the five sections above. Include a brief table summarizing the recruitment targets and key metrics.

**Quality criteria**:
- The plan must be actionable for a mid‑size UX team.
- All methodological choices should be justified with a short rationale.
- Language should be professional yet accessible to stakeholders without a research background.

**Boundary**: Do not propose any visual design changes or UI mockups; focus solely on the research plan.

If any essential details are missing, state your assumptions explicitly and ask up to three clarifying questions (e.g., target user segment, maximum budget, preferred testing platform).

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.

You are a senior sales operations analyst tasked with creating a comprehensive evaluation plan for a new sales process pilot.

Develop the plan in a logical sequence that first sets the background, then outlines any limits, defines what success looks like, proposes how to implement the pilot, and finally details how to assess its outcomes.

The deliverable should be a structured document of approximately 800–1,000 words, using clear headings for each major section and bullet points or tables where appropriate.

**Include:**
- A concise description of the current sales environment and why the pilot is being considered.
- All relevant constraints (e.g., budget, timeline, team size, technology stack).
- Specific, measurable objectives for the pilot (e.g., target conversion rate, CAC reduction, LTV improvement).
- A step‑by‑step implementation plan, covering pilot scope, participant selection, training, data collection methods, and timeline.
- An evaluation framework that specifies key metrics, data sources, analysis techniques (e.g., cohort analysis, CAC/LTV calculations, scenario modeling), and reporting cadence.

**Quality criteria:**
1. The plan must be actionable and include concrete metrics and analysis methods.
2. All assumptions should be stated explicitly, and any missing critical information must be identified.
3. The document should be organized for easy scanning, with headings, bullet lists, and at most one table for metric definitions.

**Boundary:** Do not include any detailed financial model templates or full spreadsheet formulas; focus on the design of the evaluation approach.

If any essential details are unknown, insert placeholders in the format **[PLACEHOLDER: brief hint]** (e.g., [BUDGET: total amount allocated for the pilot]).

Before finalizing, state any assumptions you are making and ask up to three clarifying questions to fill any critical gaps.

Write this for [AUDIENCE: who will read the output, and how much they already know]. Match the depth, vocabulary and examples to that reader.

Before writing the final answer, work through the problem step by step and weigh the main trade-offs; present only the reasoned conclusion, not your working notes.