Evidence-backed briefs: stop shipping claims without citations
A brief you can defend: claim -> evidence -> pattern -> scoped change -> measurable acceptance criteria.
Most PRDs fail for a simple reason:
they are claims without citations.
"Users want X." "This will reduce churn." "Priority is obvious."
Based on what?
A brief you can defend
A brief worth reviewing has this shape:
claim -> evidence -> pattern -> scoped change -> measurable acceptance criteria.
That structure matters because it turns opinion into something a team can actually inspect before handoff.
Evidence-backed brief template
FOCUS QUESTION: CONTEXT (1-3 lines):
EVIDENCE (with links):
- E1:
- E2:
- E3:
PATTERNS:
- P1 (frequency + severity):
- P2:
- P3:
HYPOTHESIS: PROPOSED CHANGE: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA: RISKS: WHAT WE'LL CHECK (deploy + 7d, +14d):
One rule
If you cannot link to the evidence, do not claim it.
That one rule makes the rest of the workflow easier to trust.
Where ContractSpec fits
ContractSpec builds briefs with citation chains first, then turns them into Change Cards, Impact Reports, and reviewed handoffs.
Related articles
Outcome checks: deploy is not done
A simple Check schedule (+24h, +7d, +14d) so approved work stays tied to measurable follow-through.
Impact Report template: breaks vs must-change vs risky
A practical Impact Report template to make blast radius explicit before approved work leaves review.
Change Card template: the smallest spec engineers trust
PRDs are too big. Tickets are too small. Use a Change Card to define the reviewed handoff engineers can trust.