Use this when you have completed research synthesis and need to present findings to stakeholders who will make decisions based on the research. Produces a structured readout: executive summary, key findings with evidence, recommendations, and next steps. This bridges the gap between raw research output and organizational action.
Related skills: Consumes output from
/research-synthesizeor/interview-synthesis. For visual presentation format, follow up with/artium-deck. Part of thediscovery-sprintandevaluative-sprintrecipes.
Process
Step 1: Gather inputs
Ask the user to provide:
- Research synthesis -- output from
/research-synthesizeor/interview-synthesis(themes, findings, quotes, confidence levels) - Audience -- who will receive this readout? (Executive team, product team, cross-functional stakeholders, client.) This shapes the level of detail and framing.
- Decisions at stake -- what decisions will this readout inform? (Feature prioritization, product direction, investment, go/no-go.)
- Format -- document, slide deck outline, or async Slack/email summary?
- Time constraint -- how long will the audience spend on this? (5-minute read, 15-minute presentation, 30-minute deep dive?)
Step 2: Frame the narrative
Before writing, determine the story arc:
### Narrative frame
- **The question we asked:** (What the research set out to learn -- 1 sentence)
- **What we found:** (The headline finding -- 1 sentence that a busy exec could read and get 80% of the value)
- **What it means:** (The implication for the product/business -- 1 sentence)
- **What we recommend:** (The action -- 1 sentence)
This frame structures everything that follows. If you can't write these 4 sentences clearly, the synthesis isn't ready for a readout yet.
Step 3: Write the readout
## Research Readout -- (Topic, date)
### Executive summary
(3-5 sentences maximum. Covers: what we researched, who we talked to, what we found, and what we recommend. A VP should be able to read this paragraph and make a decision or know what to ask next.)
---
### Methodology
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Method | (Interviews, usability test, survey, mixed) |
| Participants | (Number, profile -- e.g., "6 enterprise PMs, 3-10 years experience") |
| Timeline | (When research was conducted) |
| Confidence level | (High / Medium / Low -- with honest rationale) |
(Keep this section short. Stakeholders care about "so what," not "how we did it." Include it for credibility, not as the lead.)
---
### Key findings
**Finding 1: (Headline -- write as a declarative statement, not a question)**
What we learned: (2-3 sentences. Plain language. No jargon.)
Evidence:
- "(Key verbatim quote)" -- Participant role/segment
- (Supporting data point if available -- e.g., "4 of 6 participants encountered this issue")
Implication: (What this means for the product, the business, or the customer experience.)
---
**Finding 2: (Headline)**
(Same format. 3-5 findings total. Order by impact, not chronology.)
---
**Finding 3: (Headline)**
(Same format.)
---
### Recommendations
| # | Recommendation | Informed by | Urgency | Effort estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | (Specific action -- concrete enough to become a backlog item) | Finding N | Now / Next / Later | S / M / L |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |
---
### What we still don't know
- (Open question 1 -- and the research method that would answer it)
- (Open question 2 -- and estimated effort to investigate)
This section is not a weakness -- it's intellectual honesty. Stakeholders trust researchers who are clear about the boundaries of their findings.
---
### Appendix (optional)
- Link to full synthesis document
- Participant profiles (anonymized)
- Raw data location
- Related research from prior studies
Step 4: Tailor to format
For a document/async readout:
- The format above works as-is
- Add a "tl;dr" callout at the very top (1-2 sentences) for Slack or email distribution
For a slide deck outline:
- Slide 1: Title + research question
- Slide 2: Executive summary (the 4-sentence narrative frame from Step 2)
- Slide 3: Methodology (brief)
- Slides 4-8: One finding per slide (headline, evidence quote, implication)
- Slide 9: Recommendations table
- Slide 10: What we still don't know + next steps
- Follow up with
/artium-deckfor visual design
For a 5-minute stakeholder update:
- Lead with the narrative frame (Step 2)
- Share top 2 findings only
- End with the single most important recommendation
- Offer the full readout for anyone who wants depth
Step 5: Review and validate
Ask the user:
- Does the executive summary capture the right "so what"?
- Are the findings ordered by what matters most to this audience?
- Are recommendations specific enough to act on? ("Fix the onboarding flow" is too vague. "Add progress indicators to onboarding steps 2-4 based on user confusion observed in testing" is actionable.)
- Is the confidence level honest? Overstating confidence erodes trust faster than admitting limitations.
- Did I miss any findings that should be elevated to the readout?
Output location
Present the readout as formatted text in the conversation. For slide deck format, follow up with /artium-deck. The user distributes via their preferred channel (Notion, Confluence, Slack, email, or presentation).
Example Output
Input
- Research synthesis: Output from
/interview-synthesis-- 8 interviews with mid-market HR Directors at companies of 200–800 employees using Verdant HRIS. Themes: onboarding module causes data re-entry delays (7/8 participants), reporting is inflexible for non-technical users (6/8), mobile experience is an afterthought (5/8). High confidence on first two themes, medium on mobile. - Audience: Product leadership team (CPO, 3 PMs, Head of Design) -- technically literate, already skeptical that onboarding needs a rewrite
- Decisions at stake: Q3 roadmap prioritization -- specifically whether to invest in an onboarding module overhaul vs. a self-serve reporting builder
- Format: Async document (will be shared in Notion ahead of a 45-minute roadmap review meeting)
- Time constraint: 10-minute read before the meeting; 45 minutes of live discussion
Output
tl;dr: HR Directors using Verdant's onboarding module are losing 3–5 hours per new hire to duplicate data entry -- and they're blaming the software to their leadership. Fixing onboarding is the higher-urgency investment; reporting is close behind.
Research Readout -- Verdant HRIS Mid-Market Discovery · June 2025
Executive summary
We conducted 8 in-depth interviews with HR Directors at mid-market companies (200–800 employees) to understand where Verdant HRIS is creating friction in day-to-day workflows. The research surfaced a clear hierarchy of pain: manual data re-entry in the onboarding module is the most acute and widespread problem, costing participants an estimated 3–5 hours per new hire and generating visible dissatisfaction with Verdant at the executive level inside customer organizations. Self-serve reporting is a close second -- six of eight participants described workarounds involving spreadsheet exports and manual manipulation. We recommend prioritizing an onboarding data integrity fix for Q3, with reporting infrastructure scoped for Q4, rather than treating them as competing bets.
Methodology
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Method | 60-minute semi-structured interviews |
| Participants | 8 HR Directors, mid-market segment (200–800 employees), mix of 1–4 years on Verdant |
| Timeline | May 12–28, 2025 |
| Confidence level | High on onboarding and reporting findings (7–8/8 participants, consistent evidence); Medium on mobile (5/8, surface-level complaints, not yet observed in testing) |
Key findings
Finding 1: The onboarding module forces HR teams to enter the same employee data in two to three separate places
What we learned: Verdant's onboarding flow does not sync with the core employee record or the payroll integration until manual reconciliation is triggered. HR Directors described this as a daily frustration that scales painfully during high-volume hiring periods. Several had built informal "new hire checklists" outside of Verdant to track what had and hadn't been reconciled.
Evidence:
- "Every time we bring on a cohort, I have my coordinator blocked for half a day just cleaning up what Verdant didn't carry over. It's embarrassing -- I sold my CFO on this platform." -- HR Director, 450-person SaaS company
- 7 of 8 participants named re-entry as their top Verdant complaint unprompted
Implication: This is a retention risk, not just a UX problem. Participants are actively evaluating competitors or escalating dissatisfaction internally. A fix here has defensive value before it has growth value.
Finding 2: Non-technical HR staff cannot get the reports they need without IT or spreadsheet gymnastics
What we learned: Verdant's reporting module requires filter logic that participants described as "built for someone who knows SQL." Six participants had established a standing request with their IT teams to pull custom reports monthly. Two had purchased a separate BI tool (Looker, Tableau) to compensate. None were aware that Verdant's reporting roadmap included any self-serve improvements.
Evidence:
- "I need headcount by department and tenure band every board meeting. I've been asking IT to pull that for 18 months. It should take me two clicks." -- HR Director, 310-person logistics firm
- 3 of 8 participants were paying for a separate analytics tool specifically to work around Verdant reporting
Implication: Reporting friction is creating hidden costs for customers and pushing analytical workflows off-platform -- reducing Verdant's stickiness and surfacing a landing zone for competitors with better self-serve analytics.
Finding 3: Mobile experience is perceived as inadequate, but it is not driving churn conversations today
What we learned: Five participants mentioned mobile unprompted, primarily in the context of manager approvals and employee self-service. Complaints were consistent but lower-urgency -- most had adapted by shifting these tasks to desktop or using Verdant's employee-facing app as a band-aid. No participant cited mobile as a reason they would switch platforms.
Evidence:
- "The manager approval flow on mobile is basically unusable, but I just tell managers to do it from their laptop. It's not worth the fight." -- HR Director, 620-person healthcare services company
- 5 of 8 mentioned mobile; 0 of 8 listed it as a top-two pain point
Implication: Mobile is a hygiene issue worth tracking but should not compete for Q3 roadmap space against onboarding and reporting. Revisit after those two are addressed.
Recommendations
| # | Recommendation | Informed by | Urgency | Effort estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eliminate duplicate data entry in onboarding by building a single-write employee record that syncs to payroll and the core HR module on creation -- not on manual trigger | Finding 1 | Now | L |
| 2 | Audit the 5 most-requested report types (headcount by dept/tenure, attrition, time-to-fill, compensation band) and ship pre-built templates with 1-click export before self-serve builder is complete | Finding 2 | Now | S |
| 3 | Add self-serve report builder (drag-and-drop filter logic, no SQL required) to Q4 roadmap as a follow-on to recommendation 2 | Finding 2 | Next | L |
| 4 | Instrument the onboarding module to capture where re-entry occurs post-fix, to validate resolution and surface any remaining edge cases | Finding 1 | Next | S |
| 5 | Defer mobile investment to Q1 planning; add a lightweight mobile usability test to the evaluative sprint backlog to baseline current experience | Finding 3 | Later | S |
What we still don't know
- How much of the onboarding re-entry problem is configuration vs. product architecture? Two participants mentioned their Verdant implementation partner had set up their instance years ago. We don't know if some re-entry is fixable via reconfiguration for existing customers without an engineering build. A 2-hour technical review with Implementation would answer this before Q3 scoping.
- Is the reporting workaround behavior consistent in enterprise (800+ employees)? All 8 participants were mid-market. Enterprise HR teams may have dedicated ops staff who absorb this pain invisibly, or they may experience it more acutely. Four enterprise customer interviews would give us a confident answer within two weeks.
- What do managers (not HR Directors) experience in Verdant? Every finding here comes from the HR buyer. Manager and employee-level friction is unresearched and may surface different prioritization signals, particularly for the mobile and self-service findings.
Appendix
- Full interview synthesis document → [Notion: Verdant Mid-Market Discovery Synthesis, May 2025]
- Participant profiles (anonymized) → [Notion: Research Participant Registry]
- Raw interview notes → [Dovetail project: Verdant-Discovery-Q2-2025]
- Related: Verdant onboarding NPS analysis (March 2025) -- onboarding module scored 22 points below platform average