⏱️ 60-second summary
The STORM briefing has a fixed format: eight sections, always in the same order. Before diving into the first one, look at the full map—so you can read the rest of this module knowing where each piece fits.
The purple boxes are the sections of synthesis (the panel author’s interpretation); the cyan boxes come directly from the lenses’ evidence. The verification banner is at the top because it’s the first trust signal you check.
The first section is the 60-second summary. It's written for decision-makers: no sensational headlines, no technical dump. The golden rule about order matters here—it starts with the established fact (what practically all the lenses confirm) and only then presents the disputed interpretation (where they disagree).
🧭 The order the summary follows
- 1.Established fact — the firm ground. Example: “X adoption did in fact grow; that’s not in dispute.”
- 2.Contested interpretation — what’s still disputed. Example: “whether this growth translates into returns is exactly where the economist and the skeptic disagree.”
- 3.Implication for the reader — one sentence explaining what this changes for the person making the decision.
🟡 New here? — “decision-maker level”
Means writing for someone who will act based on the text and doesn’t have 40 minutes for the full report. That’s why the summary gives the verdict with the main nuance already built in — without promising more certainty than the evidence supports.
🏅 5 findings ranked by reliability
The heart of the report is five findings — the most important things known about the topic right now. They are ordered by reliability, from strongest to weakest, not by discovery order or by which lens spoke. Each finding carries a score from 1 to 10 and two sets of chips: Powered by e Challenged by, citing the lenses.
Achado 1 · confiabilidade 9/10 "A adoção cresceu — isso é fato medido em dados oficiais." Apoiado por: acadêmico · economista · prático Desafiado por: — Achado 4 · confiabilidade 4/10 "O retorno financeiro já se justifica hoje." Apoiado por: economista (1 pesquisa comissionada) Desafiado por: cético · historiador
Notice: the well-supported finding (official data, several lenses in favor) stays at the top with a high score; the one that depends on a single commissioned survey and has strong opponents moves down and gets a low score. The score isn’t a guess — it comes from the source quality, defined during the Phase 4 review.
📊 The hierarchy that determines the score
- More reliable: peer-reviewed causal evidence.
- Official / financial / regulatory data.
- Commissioned single research.
- Analogy (including a historical parallel).
- Less reliable: unreviewed preprint.
✓ Honest ranking
- ✓More solid at the top, with a well-justified high score
- ✓Chips show WHO supports and WHO challenges
- ✓A weak finding appears—but with a low score and a caveat
✗ Misleading ranking
- ✗Rank by what’s most exciting, not most likely
- ✗Give a preprint a high rating just because it confirms the thesis
- ✗Hide the opposition so the finding looks like a consensus
🔗 Hidden connection
A hidden connection is the non-obvious link that no single lens can see — it only appears when you cross-reference two or more. That’s where STORM pays the cost of running five perspectives: a single lens didn’t have both threads to tie together.
How the link emerges (example)
O economist notes that funding for the field comes from a few investors. The academic notes that the most cited studies came from those same labs. Taken separately, they’re two lukewarm facts. Cross-referenced, they reveal the connection: "the optimistic evidence and the optimistic money have the same source" — something that changes how you read everything else.
Each lens delivers a thread
Facts that, on their own, seem secondary in each specialist’s briefing.
The contradiction map ties together
In Phase 2, when you compare the lenses side by side, the intersection emerges — it’s the raw material for this section.
Turns into a sentence that reframes the topic
The hidden connection is often the most “shareable” insight in the entire report.
💡 Reading tip
If a connection can be stated by just one lens, it isn’t a hidden connection—it’s just a finding. The test is simple: "which pair of lenses did I need to bring together to reach this?"
🕳️ Key assumption / the missing 6th lens
This section is the report’s honesty check. It names what NONE of the five lenses addressed — the panel’s blind spot—and frames it as a missing sixth lens: the perspective that, if it were at the table, could change the conclusions.
🧩 Why this stays in the report
The five lenses are chosen by the author of the panel. As good as they are, they share a gap. Stating that gap is what keeps the reader from confusing "broad coverage" with "complete coverage."
The missing 6th lens feeds directly into the boundary question (section 7): that’s where the question that could change everything usually comes from.
✓ A well-named blind spot
- ✓Say which angle was missing (e.g., the end user, the regulator)
- ✓Explains what this angle would likely reveal
- ✓Connects to the conclusion it could undermine
✗ An empty placeholder
- ✗"More research is needed" — says nothing
- ✗Repeat a lens that was already on the panel
- ✗Omit the section and pretend the panel saw everything
🎯 Actionable insight
Here, the report stops describing and starts to recommend: 3 to 6 specific moves to the target reader defined in Phase 0. This isn't generic speaking advice—it's “do this, in your role, because of finding X.”
Example — reader = owner of a small agency
- →Run a paid 30-day pilot before signing an annual contract (finding 4 is fragile).
- →Ask the provider for the source of the ROI figure — it’s probably commissioned research.
- →Set aside budget for the blind spot (end-user support) that the panel didn’t cover.
✓ Truly actionable
- ✓Verb in the command + who it applies to
- ✓Tied to a specific finding in the report
- ✓Something you can do this week, not "someday"
✗ Abstract advice
- ✗"Keep an eye on trends"
- ✗"Carefully assess the risks"
- ✗The same advice would work for any reader
🛟 Claim safety, boundary, and references
The last three sections wrap up the briefing by turning the research into something you can use it without getting burned: the claims safety guide, the boundary question, and the references with status tags.
What strong evidence supports without qualification.
True with a qualification: "according to a commissioned survey…".
What didn’t pass verification—don’t repeat it as fact.
🚩 The boundary question
This is the only empirical question that, if answered, would change the conclusions. It comes directly from the biggest conflict in the contradictions map and the missing 6th lens. E.g., "Is there any independent study, outside funded labs, measuring ROI over 12 months?"
[CONFIRMADO] Autor et al. (2024) · periódico revisado · URL [PARCIAL] Relatório de mercado · número difere · URL [REBAIXADO] Preprint não revisado · movido p/ sinal contestado [NÃO VERIF.] Fonte secundária · primária não localizada
🟡 New here? — “status tag”
Each reference gets a label assigned during Phase 4 verification (you'll explore this further in Module 3.2). At a glance, it tells you how well that citation held up against the primary source — CONFIRMED a FALSE.
Self-recovery (optional): by what criterion are the report's 5 findings ordered?
📌 Module summary
Next module:
3.2 — The Verification System