Turn vague briefs and half-formed opportunities into structured, actionable problem statements — so you can reply with clarity instead of asking for three more meetings.
Required Inputs
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
- The vague brief or opportunity description (even a single sentence is enough)
- Who asked for this (stakeholder context shapes the framing)
- Known constraints (timeline, budget, team size — if any are known)
Three-Stage Process
Stage 1: Reframe
- Restate the vague input as 3-5 explicit questions that need answering
- Identify the unstated assumptions hidden in the brief
- Surface the real decision this feeds into (what will someone do differently once this is resolved?)
Stage 2: Scope
- Define what is explicitly IN scope
- Define what is explicitly OUT of scope (equally important)
- Identify the deadline pressure: is this urgent/important, important/not urgent, or unclear?
- Name who owns the final decision and who needs to be consulted
Stage 3: Action
- Define the minimum viable research: 2-3 activities maximum that would give enough signal to move forward with confidence
- Time estimate for each activity
- What each activity would tell you (and what it wouldn't)
- Proposed check-in point: when to regroup before committing to more
Validate — Confirm every reframed question maps to at least one research activity. Verify scope boundaries are specific enough to say "no" to something concrete.
Output Structure
Problem Brief: [Opportunity Area]
Restated as questions:
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]
- [Question 3]
Unstated assumptions we should surface:
- [Assumption 1]
- [Assumption 2]
In scope: [Clear boundary] Out of scope: [Clear boundary] Decision owner: [Name/role] Timeline: [Real deadline if known, or "unclear — recommend setting one"]
Minimum viable research:
| Activity | Time required | What it tells us | What it won't tell us |
|---|---|---|---|
| [activity] | [time] | [insight] | [limitation] |
Proposed check-in: After [activity], regroup to decide whether to proceed or pivot.
Example (Partial)
Input: "We need to figure out what to do about our enterprise customers."
Restated as questions:
- Are enterprise customers churning, underperforming on expansion, or both?
- Is this a product gap, a support/service gap, or a pricing/packaging issue?
- What does "do something" look like — a new initiative, a policy change, or a resource shift?
In scope: Enterprise accounts ($50K+ ARR) showing declining health scores in the last two quarters Out of scope: SMB segment, new enterprise acquisition strategy
Anti-Patterns
- Do not reframe the brief into questions that are still too broad to research — each reframed question must be answerable by a specific activity
- Do not list a research activity without stating what it would tell you and what it would NOT tell you
- Do not leave the decision owner as "leadership" or "the team" — name a specific person or role
- Do not omit an explicit out-of-scope boundary — without it, scope will expand organically and the brief becomes meaningless
Quality Checks
- Every reframed question is specific enough to research (not "how do we improve things?")
- Scope boundaries name something concrete that is excluded
- Research activities are achievable within the stated timeline
- Decision owner is identified (not "leadership" — a specific person or role)
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Clarify a vague brief."
- "Frame an undefined problem."
- "Make sense of an unclear opportunity."
- "We need to figure out what to do about X."
- "I've been asked to look into Y."