# Comparison Page Brief

Plan a fair comparison page with reader-led criteria, verifiable sources, explicit claim boundaries, balanced alternatives, and named update ownership.

## Usage note

Use this brief for product, service, method, or plan comparisons where a reader must choose between meaningful alternatives. Verify details from current, authoritative sources and label any relationship your organization has to the options. A comparison should help the reader make a suitable choice; it should not create an artificial winner by selecting criteria that only favor the publisher.

## How to use this template

1. Describe the target reader, decision, shortlist, exclusions, and conditions that could change the choice.
2. Set neutral comparison criteria and an evaluation method before recording results.
3. Capture a dated source and exact qualification for every material feature, price, or policy claim.
4. Draft scenario-based recommendations that include drawbacks and cases favoring each option.
5. Assign a review owner and refresh trigger for changes in plans, products, evidence, or reader needs.

## Blank template

### Decision scope

- **Reader:** [Role, context, and experience]
- **Decision:** [What is being chosen]
- **Options included:** [Names and exact plans or versions]
- **Options excluded and why:** [Document scope]
- **Publisher relationship:** [Owned product, partner, affiliate, or none]
- **Primary scenarios:** [Two or more distinct jobs]
- **Last checked:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Criteria and evidence

- **Criterion 1:** [Neutral definition] — **Why it matters:** [Reader need]
- **Criterion 2:** [Neutral definition] — **Why it matters:** [Reader need]
- **Criterion 3:** [Neutral definition] — **Why it matters:** [Reader need]
- **Evidence standard:** [Documentation, reproducible test, or other source]
- **Unknowns:** [Details that could not be verified]
- **Decision rule:** [How criteria influence scenario recommendations]
- **Evidence log location:** [Working document or repository]

### Fairness and maintenance checks

- [ ] The same criteria and evidence dates apply to every option.
- [ ] Plan, version, region, tax, and billing assumptions are clear.
- [ ] Facts, publisher tests, and opinions are labeled separately.
- [ ] Strengths and material limitations are included for each option.
- [ ] The page does not imply an affiliation that does not exist.
- [ ] Screenshots and quotations retain relevant context.
- [ ] Recommendations vary when reader needs vary.
- [ ] A person owns updates and correction requests.