Stop Writing Briefs from Scratch

Every Gixo brief passes through a series of stages: drafting, word-count and structure checks, your Brand Dictionary terms, number repair when the brief has sources, readability optimization, a chart-data check, citations and a Sources section when you upload files, a normative references appendix when you name rules or standards, and an evidence check after generation. This runs structured checks before you review a single word.

Semantic blocks are structured content components like KPIs, Checklists, Steps, Pros/Cons, CTAs, and Comparison Tables. Gixo offers 20+ block types that give your briefs visual structure and make them easier for stakeholders to scan and act on.

Where a brief has sources - files you upload or connect, pages you add, or the search results web research drew on - a repair stage compares the figures in the paragraphs and lists of the draft, not its tables, with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. That is reconciliation against your own sources, not an independent fact-check, and it is silent: nothing is marked up in the delivered brief, and a sentence it cannot repair, or a draft it cannot finish, keeps its original figures. For a brief written from sources you upload, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences whose wording or figures it could not match to those sources, for you to check. It matches wording and exact figures, not meaning: a faithful paraphrase, or $8.1M where the source says 8,100,000, can fail to match while being true, so an unmatched sentence is a place to look, not an error, and a matched one is not confirmed either, because this is a comparison with your own sources, not a fact-check. It reads only part of a long source (24 passages of up to 1,600 characters), cannot see web research, so for a brief with web research turned on the list is advisory, and it checks the draft as generated, not your later edits. Treat every figure as needing review until you have confirmed it at the source.

Quick AI provides 6 instant actions -- shorten, expand, rephrase, formalize, simplify, and translate -- for fast, one-click refinement. Power Edit opens a full AI chat dialog where you can have a conversation with the AI to reshape content more deeply.

Yes. The brand compliance stage in the pipeline applies your Brand Dictionary's preferred and banned terms to every brief; it keeps terminology consistent but does not check tone or style. Unlike rotating freelancers, the output applies your terms automatically on every generation.

Invite team members into a saved workspace. Everyone edits the same brief simultaneously, sees changes in real time, and works with the same blocks and citations. No more emailing drafts or merging conflicting versions.

No. Choose from 59 curated recipes that apply domain-specific frameworks and language. Then use Quick AI or Power Edit to adjust tone, and rely on brand compliance to apply your preferred terminology. The result reads like your team wrote it.

Run a side-by-side pilot. Produce the same brief manually and with Gixo, then compare citations, number accuracy, brand compliance, and time invested. Most managers are convinced when they see a multi-stage brief delivered in minutes instead of hours.

Absolutely. Use Gixo's pipeline for the structured foundation, customize with your internal data using the block editor, and invite a colleague into the workspace for real-time review. This hybrid approach captures pipeline rigor with human judgment.

The main alternatives are AI-generated pipelines, static templates, freelancers or outsourced writers, and general-purpose chatbots like ChatGPT. Templates leave fields empty and require manual formatting; freelancers take 2-5 days with variable citation quality; ChatGPT has no source checks and unreliable citations. Gixo's alternative is a multi-stage pipeline that generates a brief in about 3 minutes, checks your figures against the source documents you uploaded, and inserts automatic [1],[2] citations.

Reliability depends on whether the tool checks its output against your sources, and on knowing exactly what that check does. Where a brief has sources - files you upload or connect, pages you add, or the search results web research drew on - a repair stage compares the figures in the paragraphs and lists of the draft, not its tables, with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. That is reconciliation against your own sources, not an independent fact-check, and it is silent: nothing is marked up in the delivered brief, and a sentence it cannot repair, or a draft it cannot finish, keeps its original figures. For a brief written from sources you upload, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences whose wording or figures it could not match to those sources, for you to check. It matches wording and exact figures, not meaning: a faithful paraphrase, or $8.1M where the source says 8,100,000, can fail to match while being true, so an unmatched sentence is a place to look, not an error, and a matched one is not confirmed either, because this is a comparison with your own sources, not a fact-check. It reads only part of a long source (24 passages of up to 1,600 characters), cannot see web research, so for a brief with web research turned on the list is advisory, and it checks the draft as generated, not your later edits. Treat every figure as needing review until you have confirmed it at the source. Whether another route - a template, a freelancer or a general assistant - reconciles figures the same way is a question to put to it directly.