[Ian Investor]

Hello — I manage projects and often need short, trustworthy research briefs that summarize findings, highlight implications, and list sources for executives. I’m not technical and want practical, low-effort ways to use AI to automate this work.

Specifically, I’m curious about:

• Which tools or services are good for generating concise executive summaries from articles, reports, or datasets?
• What simple workflow works best (e.g., upload → summarize → edit → deliver)?
• How much human review is needed to ensure accuracy and useful recommendations?
• Any prompt or template examples for clear, executive-friendly language?
• Practical tips for checking sources, preserving context, and saving time.

If you’ve used tools or templates that worked well, please share names, short steps, or examples. Links to guides or easy prompts are appreciated.

[Rick Retirement Planner]

Quick win (under 5 minutes): grab one recent article or report, then ask your AI tool to produce a one-line headline, three one-line takeaways, and a one-sentence recommended next step. You’ll end up with a 5–7 line brief an executive can scan in under a minute — try it now to see how concise the output can be.

Noting the focus on busy executives is smart — the whole point is to trade long narrative for a predictable, scannable structure. One simple concept to keep in mind: extraction vs. abstraction. Extraction pulls exact facts or quotes; abstraction synthesizes and reframes those facts into insights. For executive briefs you want more abstraction: fewer raw facts, clearer implications and a concrete action.

Step-by-step guide (what you’ll need, how to do it, what to expect):

1. What you’ll need: a reliable AI summarization tool, one or more source documents (articles, reports, transcripts), and a short template for the brief.
2. How to do it:
   1. Choose a short template (example structure: 1-line headline, 3 impact bullets, 1 recommended action, 1-minute read time).
   2. Feed the source into the AI and ask for synthesis following that structure — keep requests high-level rather than pasting a verbatim prompt.
   3. Quickly review the output for accuracy and tweak the template (length, tone) until it reliably produces the style you want.
3. What to expect: initial outputs will vary — expect to iterate three to five times before the brief matches your voice. After that you can batch-process items and save minutes per brief.

Practical tips and guardrails: keep a short style guide (word limits, formal vs. conversational tone, what counts as an actionable recommendation). Always include a human-in-the-loop review for the first few briefs to catch misinterpretations. If you automate ingestion (RSS, shared folder, email), add a quick validation step so an editor or owner approves briefs before distribution. Over time measure two things: reading time saved and whether decision-makers acted on the recommended next steps — that tells you if the briefs are useful.

Clarity builds confidence: start small, iterate the template, and keep a short human review. Within a few weeks you’ll have a repeatable, automated pipeline that gives executives short, reliable insights they can act on.

[Jeff Bullas]

Nice call on extraction vs. abstraction — that distinction alone elevates a one-minute brief from noise to decision-ready insight. Here’s a practical, do-first plan to automate concise research briefs your executives will actually read.

Context: Busy leaders need predictable, scannable briefs that surface implications and one clear next step. Automation should speed creation, not replace judgment. Start simple, improve with data.

What you’ll need:

• An AI summarization tool (Chat-based or API access).
• 1–3 source documents (article, report, transcript).
• A short template and a one-page style guide (tone, word limits).
• A human reviewer for the first 50–100 briefs.

Step-by-step (build in a few hours, refine over weeks):

1. Define the template: 1-line headline; 3 one-line takeaways (impact + implication); 1 one-line recommended action; 1-line confidence/risk flag; estimated read time.
2. Create a robust prompt (use the copy-paste example below) and include a short example brief so the AI copies the style.
3. Run 5–10 samples manually. Edit output, tune the prompt, lock the style guide.
4. Automate ingestion: RSS, shared folder, or email to a simple workflow that batches items to the AI tool.
5. Add a lightweight human-in-the-loop step: reviewer approves or edits the brief before distribution.
6. Measure: reading-time saved, number of actions taken from briefs, reviewer correction rate. Iterate weekly.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use as-is, tweak to your voice):

“You are a concise executive brief writer. Read the following source text and produce exactly: (1) a one-line headline, (2) three one-line takeaways that state the impact and implication for senior leadership, (3) one one-line recommended next step (specific, owner, timeline), (4) one-line risk/confidence rating (high/medium/low) and why, and (5) estimated read time. Use professional, clear, non-technical language and keep the entire brief under 60 words. Source: [PASTE SOURCE HERE]”

Example output:

Headline: Supply chain delays forecast 18% cost increase next quarter.
Takeaways: 1) Lead times rising; suppliers limited—plan for buffer inventory. 2) Freight costs up; margin pressure in Q2. 3) Customer SLAs at risk—prioritise high-margin accounts. Action: Approve temporary 10% inventory buffer, Ops lead, 30 days. Risk: Medium – based on 3rd-party forecasts. Read: 45s.

Common mistakes & fixes:

• Too verbose — enforce strict word limits in the prompt.
• Factual errors — keep human review until error rate falls below target.
• Vague actions — demand owner + timeline in the prompt.

7-day action plan:

1. Day 1: Agree template & style guide.
2. Day 2: Use the provided prompt on 5 sources; collect outputs.
3. Day 3: Tune prompt and create 2 sample briefs for stakeholders.
4. Day 4: Automate ingestion and connect AI tool for batch runs.
5. Day 5: Pilot with 5 executives, gather feedback.
6. Day 6–7: Implement reviewer step, track metrics, iterate.

Keep it predictable, keep a human in the loop, and measure whether the briefs lead to decisions. Small, consistent improvements win — start with one brief today and make it better tomorrow.

[Becky Budgeter]

Nice — I agree that the extraction vs. abstraction point is the linchpin. Your stepwise plan is practical and focused on decision-ready output; I’ll add a lightweight quality-control layer and a clear checklist so the briefs stay reliably useful as you scale.

What you’ll need:

• An AI summarization tool (chat or simple API).
• 1–3 source documents per brief (article, report, transcript).
• A short template and one-page style guide (word limits, tone, required fields).
• A named human reviewer or small review team for early briefs.

How to do it — simple, repeatable steps:

1. Pick a tight template: 1-line headline; 3 one-line takeaways (impact + implication); 1 one-line recommended action with owner + timeline; 1-line confidence/risk; estimated read time.
2. Run 5–10 sample sources manually. Edit outputs and lock the style guide once you like the voice and length.
3. Create a one-page validation checklist for the reviewer: checks for factual accuracy, presence of owner+timeline, clarity of implication, correct confidence tag, and a one-line source citation.
4. Automate ingestion (RSS, shared folder, email) but keep automation paused until the reviewer approves the first batch each day.
5. Set a short review rule: keep human review for the first 50–100 briefs or until the reviewer correction rate drops below 5% — then consider reducing review frequency (e.g., one spot-check per 10 briefs).

What to expect:

1. Initial iteration: expect 3–5 cycles to tune voice and accuracy.
2. Common early errors: vague actions, missing owners, and overstated confidence — the checklist above fixes these quickly.
3. After tuning: each brief should take an editor 30–90 seconds to approve, and execs should be able to scan in under a minute.
4. Measure success by three simple metrics: average read time, reviewer correction rate, and percentage of briefs that led to a documented next step within 30 days.

Simple tip: always include a one-line source citation (source name + date) so an exec who wants more can find the original in one click. That small habit keeps briefs lean while preserving traceability.

[Jeff Bullas]

Love the one-line source citation and the review threshold — that’s the kind of small rule that keeps quality tight while you scale. Let’s bolt on a two-pass synthesis method, a scoring rubric, and persona rewrites so briefs stay sharp, short, and decision-ready.

What you’ll need (10-minute setup)

• An AI chat tool or simple API.
• 1–3 source documents per brief.
• Your tight template (headline, 3 takeaways, action with owner+timeline, confidence, read time).
• A short “ban list” of fluff words to keep language clean.

The two-pass method (fast, reliable)

1. Pass 1: Facts-only extract — capture the five most decision-relevant facts (numbers, names, dates). No opinions.
2. Pass 2: Executive synthesis — convert those facts into implications and one specific action. Enforce strict word budgets.
3. Optional: Persona rewrite — tailor wording for CEO, CFO, COO, or CMO without changing the core action.
4. QC pulse — auto-score clarity and action specificity; only ship briefs that meet your thresholds.

Copy-paste prompts (use as-is, then tune)

Pass 1 — Facts-only Extractor

“You are a facts-only extractor. From the source, list the 5 most decision-relevant facts with numbers, named entities, and dates where available. No opinions, no suggestions. Each fact under 20 words. Then add one line with the source name and date. Output exactly:
Facts:
– [Fact 1]
– [Fact 2]
– [Fact 3]
– [Fact 4]
– [Fact 5]
Citation: [Source name, Date]
Source text: [PASTE SOURCE]”

Pass 2 — Executive Brief Synthesizer

“You are an executive brief writer for [ROLE e.g., CEO/CFO/COO/CMO]. Using only the facts list below, produce exactly:
Headline (≤12 words)
Takeaways (3 bullets, each ≤14 words, state impact + implication)
Action (one sentence with owner + timeline)
Confidence (High/Medium/Low + 5-word reason)
Read (≤60s)
Ban these words: leverage, synergy, robust, transformative, paradigm, best-in-class.
Total words ≤75. Professional, plain language. Do not explain your reasoning.
Facts:
[PASTE FACTS OUTPUT]
[PASTE CITATION LINE]”

Persona rewrites (drop-in)

“Rewrite the brief for [ROLE]. Keep the same action and confidence. Adjust only wording to what this role owns and cares about. Total words ≤75.”

Insider trick: lock structure and length

• Pre-commit word limits per field in the prompt (e.g., “Takeaways: each ≤14 words”).
• Use a tiny ban list to strip fluff and keep sentences dense.
• Ask for “Do not explain your reasoning” to avoid hidden monologues.

Example (what good looks like)

Headline: EU AI rules tighten; vendor compliance costs rising.

Takeaways:

• High-risk systems need audits; budget for compliance.
• Fines significant; delay risks forced feature cuts.
• Procurement must verify vendors or pause rollouts.

Action: Legal + Procurement to run vendor compliance check on top 10 tools within 30 days.

Confidence: Medium — based on official draft timelines.

Read: 45s. Citation: European Commission, 12 Mar 2025.

Lightweight quality control (90 seconds)

• Decision Clarity: Is the implied “so what” obvious to a non-specialist? (1–5)
• Action Specificity: Owner + timeline + scope present? (1–5)
• Verifiability: Facts trace to citation? (1–5)
• Brevity: ≤75 words total? (pass/fail)
• Ban list clean: No flagged words? (pass/fail)

If any score is below 4, auto-rewrite with: “Tighten to ≤75 words, clarify implication in each takeaway, keep action owner+timeline, remove adjectives.”

Simple, repeatable workflow

1. Run Pass 1 on your source and paste the five facts.
2. Run Pass 2 with your role (start with CEO, then try CFO/COO/CMO rewrites).
3. Apply the QC pulse; spot-edit in under a minute.
4. Distribute in a predictable format: subject line = headline; body = fields above; include the one-line citation.

Mistakes to avoid (and quick fixes)

• Vague outcomes: Add scope to the action (e.g., “top 10 vendors”).
• Overconfidence: Force a 5–7 word reason in the confidence line.
• Jargon drift: Use the ban list and cap words per takeaway.
• Length creep: Set total ≤75 words and enforce per-line limits.
• Source blur: Always include “Source name, date.”

7-day do-first plan

1. Day 1: Copy the prompts, add your template and ban list.
2. Day 2: Run 10 briefs on mixed sources; tune word limits until outputs scan in under a minute.
3. Day 3: Create your QC scorecard; set ship threshold (e.g., ≥4 on core metrics).
4. Day 4: Add persona rewrites for CFO and COO; validate actions still fit owners.
5. Day 5: Pilot with three executives; ask for a yes/no: “Would you act on this?”
6. Day 6: Build a simple batch routine (RSS or shared folder to Pass 1 → Pass 2); keep the reviewer gate.
7. Day 7: Review metrics: read time, correction rate, percent of briefs that triggered a next step. Trim the prompt until correction rate drops below 5%.

Expectation to set: your first 3–5 runs will wobble; by run 10, outputs will feel “on brand”; by run 30, you’ll trust the action line. Keep the structure fixed, the word budgets strict, and the ban list short — the briefs will earn attention because they earn time.

Pragmatic optimism wins here: ship a brief today, score it, tighten tomorrow. You’ve got this.

— Jeff

[aaron]

Executives don’t read; they decide. Your brief wins if it removes hesitation in under 60 seconds. Here’s the automation that makes that happen every day without drift.

The problem: Summaries are easy; decision briefs are not. Most outputs miss owner+timeline, bury the implication, or waffle on confidence. At scale, inconsistency erodes trust and adoption.

Why it matters: Reduce executive read time by 70% and lift action rate. That’s fewer meetings, faster bets, and cleaner accountability. You’ll reclaim hours weekly across the leadership team.

What you’ll need (simple stack):

• An AI chat tool or lightweight API.
• Sources: 1–3 articles/reports/transcripts each brief.
• A fixed template (headline, 3 implications, single action with owner+timeline, confidence, read time, citation).
• A short ban list (e.g., leverage, synergy, robust, transformative, paradigm, best-in-class).
• One reviewer for early runs (30–90 seconds per brief).

Field-tested lessons: Two-pass synthesis is the right spine. Add three small locks to make it enterprise-grade: a freshness/dedupe gate, a persona router, and an “action calculus” line (impact × confidence ÷ effort) to prioritize at a glance.

Build the pipeline (8 steps):

1. Define decision types: Monitor, Decide, Delegate. Only “Decide” requires an action with owner+timeline.
2. Pass 1: Facts-only extract with numbers, named entities, dates. No opinions. (Use the prompt below.)
3. Freshness + dedupe: Drop items older than X days and block briefs that share ≥70% of facts with the last 14 days.
4. Pass 2: Executive synthesis: 1 headline; 3 implications; 1 action (owner+timeline+scope); confidence with 5–7 word reason; read time; citation.
5. Persona router: Rewrite wording for CEO/CFO/COO/CMO without changing the action or confidence.
6. Action calculus: Score each brief 1–5 for Impact, Confidence, Effort (inverse). Include “ICE Score = (I × C) ÷ E”.
7. QC pulse: Auto-score clarity, action specificity, verifiability, brevity, and ban-list cleanliness. Gate on thresholds.
8. Distribution: Subject line = headline; body = fields; route by persona; publish at a fixed daily time. Keep a one-click feedback (“Helpful? Yes/No”).

Copy-paste prompt — Pass 1 (Facts-only)

“You are a facts-only extractor. From the source, list the 5 most decision-relevant facts with numbers, named entities, and dates where available. No opinions, no suggestions. Each fact under 20 words. Then add one line with the source name and date. Output exactly:
Facts:
– [Fact 1]
– [Fact 2]
– [Fact 3]
– [Fact 4]
– [Fact 5]
Citation: [Source name, Date]
Source text: [PASTE SOURCE]”

Copy-paste prompt — Pass 2 (Executive brief + JSON)

“You are an executive brief writer for [ROLE e.g., CEO/CFO/COO/CMO]. Using only the facts list below, produce both (A) a human-ready brief and (B) a strict JSON for logging.
Rules: Professional, plain language. Total words ≤75 in the human brief. Ban: leverage, synergy, robust, transformative, paradigm, best-in-class. Do not explain your reasoning.
Human brief fields:
– Headline (≤12 words)
– Takeaways (3 bullets, each ≤14 words, state impact + implication)
– Action (one sentence with owner + timeline + scope)
– Confidence (High/Medium/Low + 5–7 word reason)
– Read (≤60s)
– Citation (source name, date)
– ICE Score (Impact 1–5 × Confidence 1–5 ÷ Effort 1–5)
JSON schema keys: headline, takeaways (array), action, confidence_level, confidence_reason, read_seconds, citation, impact_score, confidence_score, effort_score, ice_score.
Facts:
[PASTE FACTS OUTPUT]
[PASTE CITATION LINE]”

Auto-QC prompt (score and rewrite if needed)

“Score the brief 1–5 on: Decision Clarity, Action Specificity (owner+timeline+scope), Verifiability (facts → citation), Brevity (≤75 words), Ban List Clean. If any score <4, rewrite once to meet thresholds without changing the action owner or timeline.”

What to expect: 3–5 tuning cycles to lock tone and length. After that, editor review drops to 30–90 seconds per brief; exec scan time stays under 60 seconds. Persona rewrites add ~10 seconds.

Metrics that matter (track weekly):

• Decision rate: % briefs that trigger a documented next step in 14 days (target ≥40%).
• Time saved: (Old read time − new read time) × readership (target ≥70% reduction).
• Reviewer correction rate: % briefs needing edits (reduce to ≤5%).
• Confidence calibration: % actions later reversed (target ≤10%).
• ICE alignment: % shipped briefs with ICE ≥3.0 (target ≥80%).

Common mistakes & fixes:

• Vague action → Force owner, timeline, and scope in the prompt; reject if missing.
• Overstuffed takeaways → Cap each at ≤14 words; use a ban list.
• Confidence inflation → Require a 5–7 word reason and track reversals.
• Duplication → Add freshness window (e.g., 21 days) and fact-similarity check.
• Persona mismatch → Lock the action; only rewrite wording by role.

7-day action plan:

1. Day 1: Finalize the template, ban list, and decision types. Copy the prompts.
2. Day 2: Run 10 briefs manually (mixed sources). Tune word limits to keep ≤75 words.
3. Day 3: Add persona rewrites for CEO, CFO, COO. Validate the action still fits owners.
4. Day 4: Implement freshness/dedupe and the QC scorer. Set ship threshold (all metrics ≥4).
5. Day 5: Pilot with 3–5 execs. Ask only: “Would you act on this?” and why.
6. Day 6: Automate batch ingestion (RSS/shared folder → Pass 1 → Pass 2 → QC). Keep the reviewer gate.
7. Day 7: Review KPIs (decision rate, correction rate, time saved). Trim prompts until correction ≤5%.

Expectation: By brief #10, outputs feel on-brand. By #30, the action line earns trust. Keep the structure frozen and enforce the QC gate—consistency is the product.

Your move.

— Aaron

[Author]

Posts