# A competitor brief your team can challenge. Reviewed: 2026-09-12 Canonical: https://clankercloud.ai/templates/competitor-research-brief Use this template to create a dated competitor evidence brief rather than an unsupported ranking. Every material claim should identify its source, the date of the evidence, and any uncertainty. Start with the fictional packet, then replace it with verified sources for your actual market. ## What you are working toward A claim-by-claim evidence table and focused questions for product research. ## Start with - A narrow research question and a cutoff date - Dated source snapshots or accessible primary-source links - The same evaluation dimensions for each company ## Choose a decision the brief can inform A useful competitor brief starts with a limited question. This example asks what export and access claims a product team should investigate. It does not attempt to identify the best project tool, predict market share, or compare costs without pricing evidence. Narrow scope makes both research and review more reliable. Define dimensions before reading the competitors so an interesting feature on one website does not become an unfair requirement for the others. Use the same categories, evidence standard, and cutoff date. Add an explicit “not covered in supplied sources” value instead of forcing each cell into yes or no. ## Use evidence you can revisit For a real brief, prefer current product documentation for capability claims and official pricing pages for commercial terms. Keep the URL, page title, retrieval date, and relevant excerpt or saved snapshot with the Project. A link can change after the brief is written, so record enough context for a future reviewer to understand the original claim. The downloadable packet is entirely fictional and intentionally has no live product URLs. It lets you test the method without turning an invented company into a source. Replace it with actual evidence before producing a brief for business use; do not ask the Agent to discover supporting facts for the fictional names. ## Resolve contradictions cautiously Harborlist’s June announcement says scheduled exports are coming soon, while its September product guide states they are available. The later guide is stronger evidence for the sample’s current capability row. Preserve the older statement in a conflict note rather than reporting both claims as equally current or silently discarding the disagreement. For real products, a newer page may cover a different plan, region, runtime, or release channel. Check that the apparently conflicting statements describe the same thing. If their scopes differ or cannot be established, keep the result unresolved and identify the exact question that needs another primary source. ## Keep marketing and missing information in their place Cedarboard’s “fastest” wording has no benchmark behind it in the packet. Record it as an unsupported marketing claim if relevant, but do not promote it into a performance advantage. Similarly, missing retention information means the supplied sources do not state a retention policy; it does not prove that no policy or capability exists. Separate observed facts from your interpretation. “The guide documents weekly export” is a source claim. “This could reduce a manual reporting step” is an inference that depends on the team’s workflow. A clear brief can include both as long as readers can tell which is which. ## Inspect the table before writing the narrative Check every capability row against its cited excerpt and date. Confirm that private-link access for Harborlist remains unknown, rather than borrowing Cedarboard’s sign-in rule. A generated summary can sound balanced while quietly applying evidence from one product to another; the table makes that mistake easier to catch. Write the executive paragraph only after the evidence table is reviewed. It should identify documented differences and open questions without announcing a universal winner. For this sample, the useful next step is to investigate scheduled-export availability and access rules, not to recommend a purchase or publish a competitive claim. ## Give the brief an expiry condition Save the reviewed brief with its source packet and cutoff date. Record which claims are most likely to change, such as preview availability, pricing, and plan restrictions. Revisit those facts before reusing the brief in a sales document or a product decision made weeks later. If a page becomes unavailable, retain the last observed statement as historical evidence and mark current status unknown. Do not interpret retrieval failure as feature removal. A recurring review can later compare fresh sources with this baseline, but copying this prompt does not configure that automation or grant access to any source. ## Sample files Fictional inputs. Download and add to your Project. - [competitor-evidence.md](https://clankercloud.ai/templates/competitor-research-brief-files/competitor-evidence.md): Four fictional source excerpts, including a dated contradiction and an unsupported superlative. ## Try this prompt Copy into a Workspace Session. Opening Workspace does not send it automatically. ```text Create competitor-brief.md from the fictional evidence packet below. Do not browse for these invented products. Use columns: dimension, Cedarboard evidence, Harborlist evidence, source IDs, uncertainty. Compare manual export, scheduled export, private-link access, and retention. Distinguish documented facts, unsupported marketing, and not-stated information. Explain the S2/S3 date conflict without inventing a release date. Add a short summary for a product team and three specific follow-up research questions. Do not rank performance, estimate pricing, contact vendors, or make a purchasing recommendation. Preserve the research cutoff and the fictional label. # Fictional competitor evidence packet Research cutoff: 2026-09-10. None of these products or claims describes a real vendor. Question: which export and access claims should our product team investigate? ## S1: Cedarboard product guide, supplied snapshot dated 2026-09-08 Manual CSV exports are available. Private board links require recipients to sign in. The guide does not mention scheduled exports or a retention period. ## S2: Harborlist product guide, supplied snapshot dated 2026-09-09 Manual CSV exports and scheduled weekly CSV exports are available. The guide does not describe private-link access or retention. ## S3: Harborlist announcement, supplied snapshot dated 2026-06-01 Scheduled exports are described as coming soon. No availability date is stated. ## S4: Cedarboard marketing excerpt, supplied snapshot dated 2026-09-07 The excerpt calls Cedarboard the fastest way to organize projects. It supplies no benchmark. Team priorities: distinguish documented capabilities, stale statements, missing facts, and unsupported marketing. We have no evidence about actual performance, pricing, or user satisfaction. ``` ## Illustrative result Fictional sample; your result depends on your inputs and needs review. ```text Fictional expected brief — cutoff 2026-09-10 Manual CSV: documented for both (S1, S2). Scheduled weekly CSV: not stated for Cedarboard; documented for Harborlist in the later guide (S2). Private links: Cedarboard requires recipient sign-in (S1); Harborlist not stated. Retention: not stated for either product. Conflict: S3 is an older coming-soon statement; S2 documents availability later. Exact release date is unknown. Unsupported: Cedarboard’s “fastest” claim has no supplied benchmark (S4). Next questions: verify Cedarboard scheduling; verify Harborlist private access; find retention terms for both. ``` ## Before using the result - Every populated capability cell cites the correct dated source. - Not stated is never converted into No or Not supported. - The older announcement is visible in the conflict note. - No benchmark, price, real vendor link, or release date was invented. - The saved brief identifies its fictional inputs and research cutoff. ## Common questions ### What can I bring into a Project? Upload documents, spreadsheets, PDFs, images, and presentations, or attach files and paste images in a Session. Add Project instructions to explain the audience, preferred format, and facts the Agent should use. [Read more in the FAQ](https://clankercloud.ai/faq#source-files) ### How do I reuse research and useful answers? Keep quick references in Bookmarks. Save lasting knowledge in Archive → Wiki, open articles to follow their source links, and keep related files and instructions in a Project. Check cited sources before relying on a research result. [Read more in the FAQ](https://clankercloud.ai/faq#knowledge) ## Sources - [Workspace guide: compare evidence](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai/#page=faq&tab=articles&article=first-useful-session) - [Workspace guide: retain research and sources](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai/#page=faq&tab=articles&article=files-and-knowledge) ## Related - [Check the claim. Open the source.](https://clankercloud.ai/learn/verify-ai-research) - [A research update that knows what changed.](https://clankercloud.ai/templates/recurring-research-brief) - [Compare your sources. Make a clearer decision.](https://clankercloud.ai/learn/research-with-project-files) [Open Workspace](https://workspace.clankercloud.ai) [Current pricing and usage](https://clankercloud.ai/pricing)