Frame the decision
Name the audience, requested decision and source pack. Review imported tables and extracted text; record gaps instead of allowing a polished narrative to conceal them.
Upload reports, notes, and source files, then turn them into a business brief your team can actually review and use. The draft stays editable, easier to check, and easier to export when it is ready.
Converting documents into a business brief means turning reports, notes, and source files into a structured business-brief draft that a team can review, edit, and export — instead of manually copying and reformatting information by hand. Describe the business question and intended audience, add the sources you want to use, and review the proposed outline and missing evidence before generating. The draft stays grounded in the uploaded source set rather than being generated from a blank prompt.
Inspect an actual Business report. A readable decision brief needs the question, supplied evidence, options, assumptions and next decision—not just a shorter source document.
A decision, options compared on stated criteria, risks and a roadmap, with statements in the analysis labelled Fact, Inference or Assumption. The decision, lists and some summary sentences carry no label.
Business question: Which actions should a small business that stores customer personal information take first to protect it and to be ready if it is exposed? Decision maker: The owner of a small business. Timeframe: The next quarter. Context: A small business collects customer personal information and keeps it in paper files and on computers. It has no dedicated security staff. Refer to it as 'the business' throughout and do not give it a name. Options: Take stock of the personal information it keeps and where it is stored; Reduce what it keeps to what the business needs; Lock down the information it keeps with practical safeguards; Prepare a plan for responding to a data breach. Criteria: How much personal information at risk it removes or protects; How realistic it is for a small team without security specialists; How well it limits the harm if information is exposed. Constraints: No dedicated security staff; Limited time and budget.
Open the full export and compare its statements with the cited sources before reuse.
Name the audience, requested decision and source pack. Review imported tables and extracted text; record gaps instead of allowing a polished narrative to conceal them.
Separate supplied facts, calculated values, assumptions and recommendations. For variance work, reconcile the period, unit, baseline and actual value before interpreting the direction of a difference.
Use options, trade-offs, risks and named next actions. Review the final artifact and, when using Analyst calculations, inspect the calculation evidence separately from the narrative.
Select source documents, case context, working notes, assumptions, options and decision constraints before generation. Inspect claims, metrics, exact quotations, source tables and conflicting figures. Review decisions are scoped to the source or artifact and can become stale after evidence changes; unresolved evidence should stay visible.
Keep investment, recurring costs, benefits, delays, growth, discount assumptions and scenario probabilities explicit. Inspect deterministic cash flow and the available return, payback and sensitivity outputs. Compare scenarios before selection, and inspect the formula workbook or calculation receipt separately from the narrative recommendation.
Inspect the dossier's source tables, working rows and columns, calculation ledger and workbook handoff. Metric packs retain reviewable calculation and source context. Preview source replacements for a new period before accepting them. Execution records distinguish an action owner, baseline, target, measured value, data source and the reason for a status change.
A calculation can be replayable while the supplied inputs remain wrong. A generated report is decision support, not independent diligence, audit assurance or investment advice.
This works best when the information is spread across long documents and you need a clean first draft without manually stitching everything together.
Bring in reports, research, transcripts, and notes instead of copying fragments into a blank prompt.
The draft is structured from the start, so it feels more like a working document and less like a wall of text.
Use AI help where needed without blowing away the rest of the brief.
Review the saved brief and versions. Comments and named sharing require Business Professional or higher and the current content role; check access and resolve save conflicts before distribution.
Pull multiple documents into the same brief so the draft reflects the whole picture, not just one file.
Describe the business question and intended audience, add the sources you want to use, and review the proposed outline and missing evidence before generating.
Teams often have the information they need already. The problem is that it is buried across reports, decks, transcripts, and notes that nobody wants to manually turn into a clear brief.
Gixo helps turn those files into a first draft that is easier to read, edit, and review. The useful part is not just the conversion. It is that the draft stays structured, grounded in the source set, and workable with the rest of your team.
Start with the reports, research, notes, or transcripts that should feed the brief.
Describe the business question and intended audience, add the sources you want to use, and review the proposed outline and missing evidence before generating.
Gixo creates the first version, then you can tighten sections, adjust structure, and get team feedback.
Once the brief is ready, export it in the format you want to share.
| Evaluation area | Gixo Business | What to check in ChatGPT, manual conversion and outsourcing |
|---|---|---|
| Job and inputs | Turn selected source material into a reviewable brief; check extraction and omitted context. | Test the current product or scoped service against the same question, sources and deliverable. |
| Evidence review | Inspect source coverage, uploaded-file citation markers and generated-draft Evidence and citation findings. | Check source support and current research capabilities; a citation alone does not confirm the conclusion. |
| Revision and delivery | Edit the brief, retain saved versions and review the final export. | Test the actual review, collaboration, version and export workflow you need. |
| Timing and responsibility | Generation time varies with the job and source pack; accountable people review the result. | Compare the agreed scope and review responsibilities rather than assume fixed speed or price. |
Teams that deal with high volumes of incoming information benefit most from automated document-to-brief conversion.
For a brief written from sources you upload or from the search results web research drew on, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences or table cells 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) and at most 12 sources, files first. Of web research it reads the title and snippet of each search result, not the page, so a figure taken from the page alone does not match, and if it could not read every result the list is advisory. It reads a table cell with its row and column, and a total the table works out from its own cells passes when the arithmetic holds. It checks the draft as generated, not your later edits.
Updated