Workflow-specific products Content, decks, briefs, proposals, legal, and sales each have a clearer buying path.

Review before delivery Draft, edit, collaborate, approve, and export in the same workspace.

Security + procurement path Security policy, support, and Azure Marketplace buying are public.

Microsoft AI Partner Azure Marketplace G2 Trustpilot

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.

Start a Business brief Compare Business plans

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 recipe 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.

Example Business brief document preview — Example market-research brief preview. Open the full image to inspect the document; check the underlying sources before using its claims.

Create the market brief in four steps

Define your market and pick a recipe

State the market, geography, time period and decision. Choose the Business recipe that matches the report, then attach dated sources and describe unresolved questions.

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?

No. With usable uploaded files and an evidence-oriented recipe, the model is asked to add numbered citations, but it can omit a marker. Web-source provenance is separate from those file citations. Review decision-sensitive claims and original sources yourself; a source match does not establish that a market estimate is correct.

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 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.

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.

Business workflows Business user guide Current plans

Updated 21 September 2026