Skip to main content
Automated reporting turns completed interviews into a structured, evidence-backed output you can use as a foundation for decision-making and client work. Rather than producing a single fixed format, the system uses a Report Plan to define what kind of output to generate. This plan acts as the “research plan for outputs”: it specifies the depth, structure, and focus of the report before content is generated.

The Report Plan

The Report Plan is the primary mechanism for shaping reporting outputs. It determines, for example:
  • How many themes are surfaced.
  • Which dimensions or cuts are included.
  • What sections appear in the final output.
The Report Plan can be accessed and edited from project set-up, not only after fieldwork is complete. Aligning reporting expectations with your original decision and objectives upfront beats retrofitting structure at the end.
Edits are made through chat, which lets the system reason about the implications of proposed changes, flag plans that are likely to be structurally unworkable, and warn when a requested structure may be hard to satisfy — while still allowing expert users to proceed. In practice, the Report Plan is how you balance depth versus brevity:
  • For more detail, increase the number of themes or sections.
  • For a tighter, more top-line artefact, reduce scope within the plan.

Interpreting outputs responsibly

Automated reports are decision support, not proof. You remain responsible for:
  • Assessing which themes are most relevant to the decision at hand.
  • Ensuring claims are proportionate to the method, sample size, and design.
  • Contextualising findings with broader knowledge of the client and category.
  • Making limitations and uncertainty explicit where appropriate.
Structured reporting and verbatim evidence make interpretation faster — but not automatic. Treat reports as working drafts, and actively search for counter-evidence and minority views, not just the dominant themes.