Record Research Decisions in Five Useful Lines

A research decision does not always need a long account brief. It does need enough context for someone else to understand why the team advanced, held, or excluded a particular assignment. Five well-chosen lines can preserve that logic when the question is narrow.

Treat five lines as a useful format, not a rigid limit on important information. If a consequential conflict needs more explanation, link a fuller evidence comparison. Brevity should remove repetition, not hide uncertainty or conditions.

Give each line a distinct job

Line one states the exact question and entity. Line two names the decisive evidence and its date or reference. Line three records the material uncertainty or limitation. Line four states the disposition for the specified use. Line five names the next owner, action, or reopening trigger.

The GOV.UK Service Manual: Analyse a research session distinguishes observations, findings, and actions. A compact decision note should preserve that separation even when the writing is short. A source fact is not automatically a business conclusion, and a recommended action is not automatically an approved one.

Avoid squeezing several unrelated decisions into the format. A site-coverage answer and a proposal approval need separate records because they have different evidence and authority.

A complete fictional five-line note

Here is an invented example for an internal service-coverage check:

• Question: does Account F18's East Dock site operate a repair workshop within our defined service area?

• Evidence: synthetic company location extract S4, reviewed October 20, lists East Dock as a repair workshop at the supplied address; the address falls inside the supplied service boundary.

• Uncertainty: the workshop's purchasing responsibility and current supplier are not established; neither is required for this coverage check.

• Disposition: coverage research supported for internal planning only; no contact or proposal approval is implied.

• Next step: account owner reviews whether a separate responsibility question is worthwhile; reopen the coverage check if operating status or service geography changes.

The source extract and account are fictional. The note illustrates how a supported answer can coexist with unknowns rather than implying every account detail is verified.

Compare it with a weak short note

East Dock looks good, research complete is shorter, but it omits the unit, evidence, scope, and meaning of complete. A colleague may interpret it as permission to contact, proof of buying interest, or confirmation of purchasing authority.

The five-line version avoids those implications by naming the intended use and the questions it does not answer. It also prevents unnecessary work: the next researcher can see that supplier identification was not accidentally forgotten but was outside this particular assignment.

Do not use source count as a substitute for relevance. Three pages repeating the same announcement may support less than one authoritative, current site description. Line two should identify the evidence that controls the decision, with a link to fuller context where necessary.

Preserve dates without inventing them

If the underlying source date is unknown, say so. A reviewed date establishes when the team checked the material, not when the fact became true. A record saying checked today must not make a years-old claim appear newly confirmed.

For an effective-dated event, include the relevant date in the evidence or uncertainty line. If a transfer is announced but not completed, the disposition must preserve that status. Do not compress proposed and operating into a single current label.

The same discipline applies to authority. If the next step is suggested, call it suggested. If an owner has accepted it, record that acceptance separately or in the linked task. Merely naming a colleague does not establish that they agreed to act.

Know when five lines are insufficient

Expand the record when sources conflict materially, multiple entities could be involved, a handling restriction needs careful scope, or a consequential approval is disputed. The short note can still serve as the front page, but the supporting comparison must remain available to authorized readers.

Do not bury the critical limitation in a link that nobody is likely to open. Put the blocking fact in the five-line summary and use the longer record for detail.

Test the note by handing it over

Ask a colleague to identify the answer, its scope, the remaining unknown, and the next decision without asking the author for help. If they infer contact permission or buying intent from a coverage result, revise the wording.

A good compact note is not just short. It makes the research decision reproducible enough to question, update, or stop using when the evidence changes. Five useful lines can do that for a narrow task; five vague lines cannot.

Continue with Plan a First Sales Hire's Research Training or Create a Useful Sales Research Service-Level Agreement.