Colay / Guides
Turn one client research brief into eight useful perspectives
When a client needs a research draft, the bottleneck may be choosing how to organize what you already know. In Colay, you can request eight distinct lenses on the same permitted evidence packet, compare the resulting structures and develop the most useful one. Eight lenses are a writing instruction, not a promise of eight independent models or twice the delivery speed.
Define what the client will do with the research
A market overview, an investment decision and a workshop brief can use the same source material while requiring different structures. Write the client's next action at the top of your brief: choose a segment, approve a pilot, prepare questions or reject an option. Include the deadline, audience and decisions outside the assignment.
Create a small evidence packet with source IDs, dates and excerpts. Mark client-provided assumptions separately. A model can reorganize what you give it, but an unsupported market estimate does not become researched evidence after it appears in several outlines. Open the original source for each consequential claim before delivery.
Ask for different structures, not synonyms
Treat this menu as a proposed editorial technique. You do not need every lens for every client. Remove irrelevant ones before generating a long report. The point is to discover a useful organizing principle, not to sell the same finding eight times.
| Lens | Question that shapes the outline |
|---|---|
| Decision | Which choice must the reader make? |
| Customer journey | Where does the customer's work become difficult? |
| Segment | Which groups need different approaches? |
| Alternatives | What options and tradeoffs deserve comparison? |
| Constraints | What could make an attractive option infeasible? |
| Evidence gaps | Which unanswered question changes the recommendation? |
| Experiment | What small test would reduce the main uncertainty? |
| Executive narrative | What must a busy decision-maker understand first? |
A copyable prompt for eight outline candidates
Use selected agents and Ask separately if you want to compare first interpretations. An individual response can contain several requested lenses; the number of lenses and participating models are different things. Keep the source packet identical, then inspect where the proposed structures differ.
For a combined outline, explicitly pass the original brief and useful excerpts into Consensus. Ask it to preserve unresolved source gaps. This is a deliberate handoff between stages, not an assumption that separate chats automatically share their contents.
Client decision: [decision]. Audience: [audience]. Evidence packet with source IDs and dates: [material]. Produce eight short outline candidates using these lenses: decision, customer journey, segment, alternatives, constraints, evidence gaps, experiment and executive narrative. For each, give the central question, section order, relevant source IDs and missing evidence. Do not add market figures, customer quotes or competitor claims absent from the packet. Finish by recommending which outline fits the client's next action and explain the tradeoff.
Example: a client considering a new service segment
Fictional assignment: a small design consultancy is considering a service for independent retailers. The packet contains interview excerpts, its own delivery constraints and three permitted supplier descriptions. It contains no validated market-size estimate. The client must decide whether to interview more retailers before defining a pilot.
An executive narrative might lead with the opportunity; the evidence-gap structure might expose that willingness to pay is unknown. Combine those useful features: observed problem, existing alternatives, uncertainty about purchase, next interview questions and a pilot decision gate. Do not fill the missing market-size slide with a plausible number.
The final artifact is a draft with a source map: each section, its supporting IDs, open questions and intended client action. GOV.UK's research guidance separates observations, findings and actions; keeping those layers visible is useful here too. That guidance does not establish a productivity gain for AI-assisted client research.
Measure the part of the work you actually improve
Track your own drafting, source-checking and revision time separately. A faster outline is valuable only if verification and client revisions do not consume the saving. Keep the agreed scope and quality standard; do not promise a shorter turnaround until your own work supports it.
Colay uses credits and limits, so expand the strongest outline rather than generating eight complete reports by default. Start with one evidence packet and one client decision. You can then turn the checked draft into a presentation, keeping assumptions and citations visible through the final edit.
Questions, answered
Does one request produce eight independently researched reports?
No. This workflow asks for eight organizational lenses on supplied material. More research and source verification remain separate work.
Can I promise delivery twice as fast?
Only if your own measured process supports that promise. This article gives no measured speed or revenue claim.
Which structure should I send the client?
Choose the structure that supports the agreed next decision. Send a coherent checked draft, with uncertainties visible, rather than every generated variant.
Sources and methodology
- GOV.UK — Analyse a research session
Primary methodological guidance on distinguishing observations, findings and actions. The eight-outline exercise and fictional client are editorial examples.
Bring your next question to Colay
Choose a model, use Auto, or bring several perspectives together with Consensus.