# Source map

Illustrative sample using our own fictional founder notes. Produced with DeepSeek and reviewed in a separate AI request, with source-reference and file checks. No human review, real customer testimonial or revenue claim.

handoff-note: p001
interview-evidence: p002
slide-1: p003
slide-2: p003
slide-3: p003
slide-4: p003
slide-5: p003
slide-6: p003

## Owned fictional source

A useful project handoff tells the next person what decision they can make. In our fictional studio, the handoff note begins with the decision that is waiting, followed by the context needed to make it. We separate confirmed facts from open questions so a reader does not mistake a working assumption for an agreement. The note also identifies the source document that contains the underlying detail. This keeps the short summary useful without pretending it contains everything. When a question remains unresolved, we describe who can answer it and what work depends on the answer. We avoid adding a deadline simply because a template contains a date field. A good handoff supports the next person's judgment instead of replacing it. Before sharing the note, we read it from the perspective of someone who did not attend the meeting. If that reader cannot identify the next decision, the note needs another pass.

Customer interviews become easier to use when observations and interpretations stay separate. Our fictional research team keeps the customer's own wording beside the question that prompted it. A short quote without its surrounding question can suggest a certainty the conversation never contained. We therefore preserve the context before turning a statement into a theme. Different customers can use the same phrase while describing very different problems. We look for the underlying situation rather than grouping every similar word into a single conclusion. After an interview, we write down what we heard, what we think it might mean, and what remains unknown. Those notes serve different purposes and should remain visibly different. A product team can then decide which interpretation deserves another conversation. Research does not become more reliable merely because its summary is shorter. The useful summary makes the evidence easier to inspect and the uncertainty easier to discuss with the people making the decision.

A content brief should protect the original point of view before it asks for a catchy opening. For our fictional team, the first question is what the speaker actually wants the audience to understand. We then identify the source passage that expresses that idea most clearly. The brief records the intended reader, the practical situation, and any terms that need explanation. It also lists claims that the source does not support. This last field prevents an appealing headline from quietly turning into an invented promise. A short social post can simplify the presentation while preserving the limits of the original argument. We prefer one useful idea developed carefully over several unrelated tips compressed into a list. Before drafting, we describe the post's purpose in a plain sentence. If the purpose could fit any company in the market, we return to the source and look for the specific observation that makes this idea worth sharing.

An approval request works better when it makes the unresolved choice visible. In this synthetic example, the team sends a short decision note rather than a collection of files with a vague request for thoughts. The note explains what changed, why the change matters, and which part needs a decision. Supporting documents remain available for readers who want to inspect the detail. We distinguish a request for factual correction from a request to choose between approaches. Mixing those requests makes feedback difficult to interpret. If a reviewer suggests a new direction, the team records the effect on the original scope before making a promise. This is a way to preserve shared understanding, not a reason to discourage useful questions. The final decision note includes the chosen approach and the assumptions behind it. Someone returning to the work later can understand the reasoning instead of guessing why a particular version became the accepted one.