Content brief evidence planning
Put evidence requirements beside the claims they must support
Evidence slot planning connects a planned claim or decision to the proof it needs, the place that proof belongs and the person who must supply or check it. It makes unsupported requirements visible before a writer turns the outline into confident copy.
Use it when a page depends on numbers, product facts, policy terms, comparisons, recommendations or exceptions that topic knowledge alone cannot establish. Keep missing evidence and the action it affects with the brief.
Read the worked comparison evidence matrix
Plan the proof a particular statement needs
An evidence slot identifies a planned claim, the source capable of supporting it, the relevant scope, its place in the answer and the person responsible for filling or checking it. A list of references at the end of a brief does not establish which statement each source supports.
Start from the decision
List the facts and comparisons the reader needs to choose or act. Include numbers, product limits, policy terms, recommendations, exceptions and risk statements. Topic coverage alone cannot show that those statements have appropriate support.
Choose a source that fits the claim
A provider’s published plan record can support what that provider states for a named plan and period. It does not by itself establish that a connection between systems works in a tested environment, that a feature performs well or that a recommendation suits every reader. Plan a test, a qualified expert contribution or another suitable source when the statement requires it.
Specify placement and wording limits
Assign the evidence to the comparison row, claim, answer paragraph or explanatory component that will use it. State the entity, version, unit, market, date and limitation the wording must retain. A valid source can still be misused if those qualifiers disappear from the final sentence.
Separate a requirement from filled evidence
A source request is a planning item, not proof already obtained. Mark missing or disputed support explicitly. Once a source is available, mapping each claim to its source records the exact passage or observation and the wording it permits; that mapping is a related task rather than a substitute for planning the missing input.
Build a comparison brief that does not ask the writer to guess
This hypothetical brief compares two unnamed software plans for a team choosing a suitable service. It needs plan limits, price basis, cancellation terms, connections to other systems, support and a conditional recommendation. No provider records, test results or current data are supplied here. The matrix specifies evidence to obtain; it does not report completed research or an approved comparison.
| Planned claim or reader decision | Required evidence, scope and owner | Placement and response when evidence is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Can the plan support the intended team and workload? | Product researcher obtains the official plan definition and the relevant user, storage or usage limits for the exact plan, version, region and observation period. Record how limits are counted. | Place each supported fact beside the matching comparison criterion. If a limit is missing or ambiguous, label it unresolved and seek clarification; do not convert an unknown limit into zero or unlimited. |
| What does the stated price cover? | Offer researcher records the source currency, billing period, plan, market, applicable date and stated conditions. Separate a recurring price from a temporary offer and preserve the meaning of any displayed monthly equivalent. | Keep the price basis and qualifiers with the amount in its row. If only one plan has usable current support, do not present an unqualified current price comparison between both. |
| What does the provider state about cancellation? | Policy researcher obtains the applicable provider terms and their effective scope, including the relevant plan or contract and any unresolved wording. A qualified reviewer handles interpretation beyond the wording the source supports. | Place supported terms and their limits beside the cancellation criterion. Hold an unsupported interpretation or requested legal advice; do not infer terms from another plan or an older review. |
| Does the named connection between systems meet the required operation? | Technical owner identifies direction, supported objects, versions, plan access and the required operation. Published compatibility information supports the provider’s stated scope; a claim of tested behavior needs retained test conditions and observations. | Place supported scope and untested limits beside the connection row. Distinguish listed availability from verified behavior. If required operation evidence is absent, retain that dependency in the recommendation. |
| What support is available to this customer? | Support researcher records the provider’s stated channels, eligible plan, hours, time zone and any stated response terms for the relevant market. Do not treat an acknowledgement target as proof of resolution time. | Keep the channel and applicable limits in the support comparison. Mark unknown coverage explicitly and request the missing source rather than promising a response the evidence does not establish. |
| Which plan fits the defined reader? | Editorial owner combines the supported criteria with the reader’s needs, exclusion rules and unresolved evidence. Separate measured observations, provider statements and editorial judgement. | Place the recommendation after the criteria and explain its conditions. If an unresolved fact can change suitability, qualify the choice or keep it open. A larger feature count alone is not the decision rule. |
The writer receives the claim, requested proof, scope, owner, placement and fallback together. A row can be ready for supported wording while another stays unresolved. That limited readiness should not turn the whole comparison into a current, fully verified recommendation.
If the evidence changes the comparison, revise the brief rather than forcing the new fact into its earlier promise. A missing criterion can change the answer form, the order of the explanation or the page boundary. Keep the resulting change and the sources that caused it with the handoff.
Keep each slot specific enough to change the draft
A useful slot tells the researcher what to obtain and the writer what can be said. Generic directions to use authoritative sources or add evidence leave the required statement, scope and unresolved action undecided.
- Claim or decision Write the proposed statement or question at the level that needs support. Break apart a sentence that combines availability, performance and suitability when those parts require different proof.
- Required proof and source owner Name the source type, required record or observation and accountable supplier. Identify an expert contribution or first hand test when the claim requires one. A planned owner and source class do not mean the evidence has been obtained.
- Scope and wording boundary Record the subject, identifiers, version, unit, market, relevant dates and limitations. Preserve uncertainty and source disagreements. Include the conditions that would make a current claim require review.
- Placement and reader use Name the heading, comparison criterion, answer paragraph or component that consumes the evidence. Put enough attribution and qualification beside the claim for the reader to interpret it; a distant source list should not hide its scope.
- Fallback and next responsibility Define what happens if support is absent, stale, contradictory or about another subject. Choose a supported narrower statement, request research, hold the affected decision or remove the claim while preserving the reason and consequences.
Fill the supported slots and preserve unresolved work
Evidence planning continues through research, drafting and review. A source can arrive with a narrower scope than expected, become stale for current use or conflict with another record. The brief needs to carry those changes into the final answer.
- Extract claims from the intended answer. Read the proposed page purpose and reader task. List support needs in definitions, numbers, comparisons, policies, recommendations, risks and exceptions. Connect each slot to the answer it supports, not just a keyword.
- Match the proof to the statement. Choose a source class and scope that can support the exact assertion. Distinguish a published declaration from a test observation or editorial inference. Define the method and conditions needed for a new observation before requesting it.
- Assign the location and owner. Place the slot beside the intended claim or criterion in the brief. Name who obtains the source, who verifies its fit and who resolves missing or disputed input. Keep the writer’s responsibility separate from inventing research that has not been done.
- Review supplied evidence and its limits. Check identity, date, units, market, version, relevant passage and any restrictions on use. When the source does not answer the planned claim, update the slot and the brief. Do not fill the gap with a confident interpretation that the record cannot support.
- Apply the fallback and test the complete answer. Qualify, narrow, replace, hold or remove the affected claim as the evidence permits. Recheck entity continuity, page boundary, answer form, adjacent comparisons and the reader’s next action. A missing fact may change a recommendation, not just leave one blank cell.
- Carry versions and review triggers forward. Hand over the accepted brief, exact source references, unresolved slots, owners, wording limits and next action. Preserve the earlier decision when evidence changes. Reopen affected claims and dependent outputs rather than treating a filled slot as permanent truth.
Questions about evidence slots in briefs
Does every sentence need a separate source slot?
Plan slots where a factual assertion, comparison, recommendation or exception depends on support. Different statements can share a source when its scope genuinely supports each one, but the relationship still needs to be clear enough for research, drafting and review.
Is an evidence slot the same as a citation?
No. The slot plans what proof is needed, where it belongs, who supplies it and what happens when it is missing. A citation points to a source. The source still needs to support the specific claim and retain the limits that affect its wording.
Can drafting start before every slot is filled?
Supported, independent work can proceed within the agreed task. Keep the unsupported claim and any dependent decision unresolved. Do not call the entire answer verified when a required slot still lacks usable evidence.
What if two sources disagree?
Compare subject, version, market, units, observation date and effective period before calling them contradictory. Preserve both records and route a remaining conflict to its accountable owner. The easiest source to quote is not automatically the controlling one.
How do evidence slots differ from mapping claims to sources?
Slots define the required support and its place in the planned answer. Mapping records the available source passage or observation, its scope and the wording it permits. Use both when a brief needs new research and later traceability.
Does completing the matrix guarantee search performance?
No. It makes evidence requirements, limitations and responsibilities visible in the brief. It does not guarantee indexing, rankings, search features, traffic or conversions.
Related decisions and source reading
Claim to Source Brief Mapping
Connect supplied evidence to the exact passage, claim scope and permitted wording.
Content brief planning library
Place evidence requirements within the wider page task, answer form and handoff.
Source Context for Topical Maps
Retain the reader, subject, page boundary and source constraints before drafting.
Source Freshness and Expiry Control
Set review triggers for evidence that may no longer support current wording.
Handoff Standard
Transfer the accepted brief with exact versions, limits and next responsibility.
Google Search content documentation
Review Google’s questions about clear sourcing, original contribution and evidence of content creation.
The evidence matrix is a first party brief planning method with hypothetical software comparison requirements. No provider facts, prices, terms, tests or recommendations were verified in this example. Google’s content documentation is a related reference; it does not prescribe this matrix or guarantee a search outcome. A source requirement remains unfilled until relevant evidence is obtained and reviewed.