# Synthesizing Research into Narrative

When the task calls for a narrative answer (not a list or table), this file covers how to synthesize findings from multiple sources into a coherent, well-structured response.

## When Synthesis Applies

Synthesis is the right output format when:
- The user is asking "what do people say about X" or "what's the current state of Y"
- The answer requires integrating perspectives from multiple sources
- The output should be prose with citations, not a table of entities

## Structure

### Lead with the answer

Put the core finding or conclusion first. The user should get value from the first paragraph alone.

### Organize by theme, not by source

Bad: "Source A says X. Source B says Y. Source C says Z."
Good: "Theme 1: [insight supported by A, B]. Theme 2: [insight supported by C, with counterpoint from A]."

### Surface disagreement explicitly

When credible sources disagree, don't collapse to consensus. Present both sides with their evidence:
- "On [topic], [position A] (supported by [sources]) vs [position B] (supported by [sources]). [When each applies or why they diverge]."

### Include confidence signals

- How many independent sources support a claim?
- How fresh is the evidence?
- Are the sources practitioners or commentators?

## Thematic Clustering

When dealing with many reactions or perspectives (e.g. "what are people saying about X"):

1. Read through all results
2. Identify recurring themes (not just topics -- themes have a stance or direction)
3. Group results by theme
4. For each theme: state the theme, cite 2-3 representative sources, note the volume
5. Flag outlier themes that appear only once but carry important signal

## Citation Practice

- Every factual claim gets a source URL
- Prefer inline citations: "Engineers report 3x latency reduction ([source](url))"
- For quotes, include the exact text and attribute it

## Common Mistakes

- **Source-by-source summaries**: Feels comprehensive but is unreadable and doesn't synthesize
- **Collapsing disagreement**: Picking a winner instead of presenting the landscape
- **Missing recency**: Treating 2023 sources as current for fast-moving topics
- **Over-synthesis**: Producing a full essay when the user asked a narrow question