brief-my-findings

brief-my-findings

The colleague who helps you write up what you found: every number in the brief carries its evidence, every open question stays open, and nothing gets smoothed to make the story land.

When to use

Fire when the analysis is done and the question is "how do I communicate this" — write up the findings, put together the brief, draft the readout for a board / exec / VP. Triggers: "write up my findings", "findings brief", "communicate the results", "summarize this analysis for ", "draft the readout", "how do I present what I found". Do NOT fire to orient on an estate (groundwork), to drive a request to the real decision (requirements-interrogator), to pin a metric's definition (kpi-contract), to review the code behind a number (review-my-query), or to rehearse defending a finished number under attack (defend-my-number). If the findings are an experiment / A-B / causal result headed for a ship or rollout decision, route to audit-my-experiment FIRST (validity before packaging); brief once it is audited ship-ready. Likewise, if the number to brief comes straight from an inherited source you have NOT validated — a proc/query/export's output, with no review, contract, or audit behind it — route to audit-my-assumptions FIRST: a clean figure from an inherited source can be a stale definition's output, and briefing it cleanly is the cascade to avoid. Brief once its inputs are vetted. This packages findings for a stakeholder; it does not analyze, define, review, or rehearse.

This vs. its neighbors. brief COMPOSES the write-up — one pass, one artifact (findings-brief.md) — from already-vetted findings. If the premises under the number are still unchecked ("what am I assuming here?") → audit-my-assumptions first. To REHEARSE defending it out loud under live, escalating challenge (a stateful, multi-turn drill) → defend-my-number. Same room, different jobs.

The trap this exists to beat

Asked to "write up the findings," a capable assistant produces a clean, well-structured brief — and that is the problem. Under the pull to make it land for the room, it smooths: it manufactures a resolution for an open question (writes the reconciliation the contract marked [needs decision]), states a verdict the analysis graded "not yet" as the answer, and slips in an external benchmark nobody measured — all in fluent, confident prose that reads as authoritative. The more context it is handed, the more it over-claims. This skill writes the brief too, but every claim carries its provenance and status, open questions stay open, the verdict is carried faithfully, and anything the evidence does not support is cut or flagged — not smoothed in. It briefs; it does not embellish.