TL;DR:
Work in three passes: skim to choose, extract the facts into a table, then synthesize into a page.
Write the page for one reader and one decision, and cite each claim to the source it came from.
Keep the table. It is your proof and your way to answer follow-up questions.
A new rule has been announced and your team wants to know what it means for them by Friday. You find ten articles, each three screens long and each saying slightly different things. If you read them in order and then try to write from memory, you will blur them together. The way out is to separate reading from writing with a table in between.
Start with the reader and the decision
Before you read anything, write two lines: who the brief is for, and what they need to decide. "For the operations lead, who must decide whether to change our labels before the deadline" is a clear target. Everything you read is then either relevant to that decision or not. This is the main protection against producing a summary of everything that helps nobody.
Three passes: skim, extract, synthesize
Skim to choose: Spend about a minute on each article. Read the title, the first paragraph, the headings and the last paragraph. Note who wrote it and when. Drop articles that repeat each other or that are only opinion; keep the ones that add facts.
Extract into a table: For each kept article, read carefully and copy specific claims into a table: the claim, the article, the date and where in the article it appears. Use the author's words only inside quotation marks and keep quotes short.
Synthesize into a page: Group the claims by theme, find where sources agree and disagree, and write the page from your table, not from the articles. State what is known, what is disputed and what is unknown.
Cite each claim: Put a number or short source name after every claim and list the sources at the bottom. A reader should be able to find the original in one click.
Worked example: a brief on a new regulation
Here the regulation is made up so the method is clear: the "Example Labeling Rule", which says certain products must show an ingredient list in a larger size starting on a stated date. You skimmed ten articles and kept six. Your extraction table might start like this.
Claim | Source | Date | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
The rule takes effect on the date in the official notice. | Official notice (primary) | 2026-10-02 | Section 2 |
Small producers get an extra period. | News article 3 | 2026-10-05 | Paragraph 4 |
Articles 3 and 5 disagree on how long the extra period lasts. | Articles 3 and 5 | 2026-10-05, 10-08 | Paragraphs 4 and 2 |
The size requirement is stated in the rule text. | Official notice (primary) | 2026-10-02 | Section 3 |
The third row is the valuable one. A disagreement between secondary sources is a signal to go back to the primary document and see what it actually says. Resolve it there and write which source settles it.
From the table, the page can be built in a fixed shape. Open with one sentence that answers the decision. Then give three to five findings, each followed by its citation. Then list what is still unclear and who could confirm it. Close with the next step you recommend.
Bottom line: change the labels before the effective date [1].
What the rule requires: a larger ingredient list [1][4].
Who gets extra time: small producers; sources disagree on how long [3][5], so check the notice [1].
Still unclear: whether our product counts as covered.
Next step: confirm coverage with the issuing office.Check the page against the table: every bracketed number should correspond to a row, and every row you kept should appear somewhere or be consciously left out.
What makes a brief usable
One page means one page. If it spills over, cut the lowest-value finding.
Lead with the answer, not the background.
Mark confidence: "stated in the rule" is stronger than "reported by one article".
Use plain words for your reader, not the vocabulary of the articles.
Checking the brief before it goes out
Read the page once as the reader, who has not seen your table. Ask whether the first sentence alone would let them act. Then read it as a skeptic: pick two claims at random and trace each through its citation to the table and the source. If either trace fails, check every citation before sending.
Finally, put the date you finished and the date of the newest source at the top. A brief about a fast-moving rule goes out of date quickly, and a reader should know how fresh it is.
Mistakes to avoid
Writing from memory after reading all ten, which mixes claims and drops sources.
Treating an article that quotes another article as an independent source.
Leaving out dates, so an old claim reads like current news.
Quoting long passages instead of stating the claim in your own words.
Doing it faster
The table does the heavy lifting, so spend your time there. For tips on picking which of the ten deserve a close read, see finding reliable sources online. If you have the articles open on your screen, DuckyHelper can read along and talk through a confusing passage with you when you press fn on a Mac, but you decide what goes into the brief.
Frequently asked questions
How long should the skim take?
About a minute per article is enough to decide whether to keep it. If you cannot tell in a minute, it probably does not answer your decision.
Should I include sources I disagree with?
Yes, if they are relevant. Label them as disagreeing and say why you weigh them differently.
Get started
