# Thought Leadership Brief

Build an evidence-led thought leadership article around a defensible thesis, an owned perspective, credible expertise, counterarguments, and useful consequences.

## Usage note

Complete this brief before asking an executive or expert to draft. It is designed for a position that the named author can genuinely defend, not for attaching a senior person's name to a generic trend summary. Preserve interview notes and source links beside the brief so an editor can distinguish the author's experience, the organization's evidence, and the writer's synthesis.

## How to use this template

1. Define one audience decision and the tension that makes it difficult or timely.
2. Write a one-sentence thesis, then record the author's distinctive basis for defending it.
3. Map each major claim to firsthand experience, verifiable evidence, or explicit interpretation.
4. Test the thesis against counterarguments, boundary conditions, risks, and missing voices.
5. Approve an outline that moves from problem to evidence to practical consequence without promotional detours.

## Blank template

### Position and reader

- **Working title:** [Use a specific promise rather than a trend label]
- **Named author and role:** [Person accountable for the perspective]
- **Primary reader:** [Role, context, and level of knowledge]
- **Decision at stake:** [What the reader must judge or change]
- **Tension:** [Competing assumptions, goals, or constraints]
- **Thesis:** [One defensible, contestable sentence]
- **Why this author:** [Experience, access, or analysis that supports authorship]

### Argument and evidence

- **Claim 1:** [Claim] — **Support:** [Source or firsthand basis]
- **Claim 2:** [Claim] — **Support:** [Source or firsthand basis]
- **Claim 3:** [Claim] — **Support:** [Source or firsthand basis]
- **Original example:** [An approved, appropriately anonymized situation]
- **Strongest counterargument:** [State it fairly]
- **Boundary condition:** [Where the thesis may not apply]
- **Evidence still needed:** [Owner and due date]

### Editorial and publication checks

- [ ] The thesis is specific enough to disagree with.
- [ ] The author has reviewed and endorsed the actual argument.
- [ ] Direct experience is distinguished from research and inference.
- [ ] Material claims have relevant, current support.
- [ ] Confidential, personal, and customer information is approved or removed.
- [ ] Product references serve the argument rather than interrupt it.
- [ ] The conclusion gives a usable decision rule or action.
- [ ] A reviewer owns future updates to time-sensitive evidence.