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.
Generate a Market Research Brief from Sources You Can Review
Turn your market question, uploaded research and optional web research into a structured brief. Keep market definition, evidence, uncertainty and implications visible so the next decision is based on inspected sources.
Compare Business plansBusiness · real output
Keep the recommendation connected to its inputs.
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.
Analyst Dossier: The U.S. Utility-Scale Battery Storage Market
A dossier built from four public EIA pages: a snapshot of figures, an executive summary, market size and growth, key drivers and trends, the competitive landscape, segments and buyers, an outlook, recommendations and a sources appendix, ending with the product's own faithfulness review of the text.
Inspect the source brief or data
Research target: The U.S. utility-scale battery storage market. Focus: How fast U.S. utility-scale battery storage capacity has grown, what is planned for 2025 and 2026, and how battery storage compares with the other kinds of generating capacity being added. Describe a trend, ranking or comparison only where a source states it, and say where the sources are silent.
Read the sample review notes
Open the full export and compare its statements with the cited sources before reuse.
Inspect the analysis
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.
Make the handoff usable
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.
Source packs, conflicts and review decisions
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.
Calculation evidence and scenario comparison
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.
Analyst, repeat periods and execution
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.
A market research brief is a concise answer to a bounded market question: which segment, geography, buyer or competitive move deserves attention, and why. Gixo Business drafts that answer from your inputs, with source-file citations where the reviewed plan and evidence policy calls for them. Web research can add context when enabled; it does not guarantee current or complete coverage, and its provenance is separate from numbered uploaded-file references.
Starting from a market research report template can help teams agree on the question, evidence, and sections to review. Use the template as a planning aid, then verify each conclusion against its cited source material.
Additional product example
Create the market brief in four steps
Review the outline
State the market, geography, time period and decision. Describe the market question and intended audience, add the sources you want to use, and review the proposed outline and missing evidence before generating.
Generate a draft for review
Run generation and inspect the Evidence tab. Check market figures, unsupported inferences and missing citations against the source pack. A passed lexical check does not establish that the market estimate is correct.
Refine with the block editor
Edit the narrative, KPI blocks and comparison tables. Check units, periods and definitions before comparing figures; inspect table numbers separately because paragraph repair does not cover them.
Collaborate and export
Use collaboration where your plan permits it, resolve the reviewer’s questions and export the reviewed brief. Keep missing evidence visible rather than turning an unknown into a confident estimate.
What to supply before generation
Bound the question
For example: should a UK supplier prioritize independent clinics or hospital groups over the next twelve months? Give the buyer, geography, time period and decision criteria rather than requesting a generic market report.
Bring evidence with definitions
Attach research extracts, customer interviews and internal demand data. Explain what each market-size estimate includes, which currencies and years it uses, and which sources are primary rather than secondary summaries.
Choose sourcing deliberately
Use uploaded files for your own evidence. Enable web research when you want additional public context and verify the discovered pages yourself. A source found today can still contain outdated data.
What to expect and how to review it
An argument rather than a market-sized number
Look for segment definitions, demand signals, competing options, adoption barriers and implications. Ask the draft to separate observed evidence, assumptions and recommended next research.
Visible treatment of disagreements
If two sources disagree, compare scope, date, geography and method. Do not average incompatible estimates. Keep both estimates and the reason the decision remains uncertain until your reviewer resolves the difference.
A next action with limits
The brief can organize a research decision; it cannot prove willingness to pay or turn desk research into a completed customer study. Translate gaps into a short interview, data purchase or validation plan.
From a source sentence to a reviewed claim
Illustrative source: A supplied pilot report says: “18 of 24 invited teams completed the four-week pilot. No commercial renewal decision has been made.”
Draft sentence to inspect: “18 teams completed the pilot [1], demonstrating strong renewal demand.” The marker can lead to the report, but the report does not support the renewal conclusion. Keep the observed completion count; replace the unsupported inference with “Renewal intent remains untested.”
In Checks → Evidence: Inspect the claim-matching and citation findings, open the source, and edit the sentence in the brief. A missing-marker finding does not insert a reference for you. Even a matched sentence needs review of its meaning. This is a worked review example with invented data, not a customer result or a claim that this exact draft was generated.
See the Business editor and Evidence workflow · Review the product and plan boundaries
Questions to settle before you use the output
Are all market claims automatically cited and verified?
Plan the market question from the question, audience and source material, then review the proposed outline before generating.
How are citations to my uploaded files created?
Upload source files and Gixo writes the brief to cite the claims and figures it takes from them, with numbered markers such as [1] and [2] and a Sources section listing those files. The writing model places the markers, so a sentence can go uncited: the Evidence tab in the brief editor lists up to five sentences that have none, for you to check, and adds nothing to the brief itself. A brief written without uploaded files has nothing to cite. Marketing and customer-facing formats such as social posts, press notes and email campaigns are written from your files without visible citations.
What do number checks and the Evidence tab actually establish?
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, lists and table body cells of the draft with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence or cell whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. A table heading or row label is read as context, not as a figure, and a total, difference or share the table works out from its own cells is never rewritten. 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 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. Treat every figure as needing review until you have confirmed it at the source.
How are regulatory references handled?
In the optional Rules or standards panel you can name the jurisdiction, the laws or standards, and specific references such as GDPR Article 30, one per line. The brief is shaped around them, for structure and required disclosures, and ends with a Regulatory / Normative References appendix listing what you named. Gixo does not look clauses up or map requirements to them for you, and the appendix is not a source for factual claims in the brief.
Does a passed check remove the need for review?
The source forecast and verification gate are review aids, not independent fact-checking. Reviewers must confirm important claims, figures, assumptions, and recommendations against authoritative sources.
Updated
More from Gixo