Brief · Template
Assessment.
LiveAssessmentState a position and test it: the position and its confidence first, the evidence graded, the strongest objection answered, and a plain account of where the position is weakest and what would overturn it.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
When to use it
You hold or are weighing a position, and you need to know how well the evidence supports it and where it would break.
Who it is for. Leads asked to defend or challenge a position: regulatory, market access, medical affairs, compliance and pharmacovigilance leads preparing for a review, a negotiation or a sign-off.
Why positions fail in review
A position that arrives without its basis invites the question “on what?”. Auditing standards answer it by requiring the opinion to come first and the basis for it to follow directly, because the basis gives the context in which the opinion should be read. This template borrows that order, then adds the two things a review always asks next: the strongest case against the position, and how sure you can be.1
What you get
The position, first. Four labeled lines: the position, the standard it is judged against, the confidence, and the scope. A reader who stops there knows what is claimed.1
The basis, graded. A table of findings, each with its source and tier, a certainty rating of high, moderate, low or very low, and the reason for the rating. The ratings follow the five domains used in evidence synthesis: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. The ratings are analyst judgment.2,3
Why the evidence supports it. At Comprehensive length, three to five sentences that connect the findings to the position and mark the assumptions.
The strongest objection, answered. The objection is restated fairly first, in terms its holder would accept, then answered, and the answer says what is still not settled.5
Other views considered. At Comprehensive length, a table of two to four alternative positions and why each was not adopted.
Where it is weak. The one weakness that would hurt most, a register of weaknesses by type, the finding that would overturn the position, and the gaps. The types are those proposed for describing uncertainty in regulatory benefit-risk assessment: not enough information, unreliable information, conflicting information, and lack of understanding of how relevant the information is.4
What is in it, by length
| Section | Brief | Standard | Comprehensive |
|---|---|---|---|
| The positionThe position, the standard applied, the confidence and the scope | – | ● | ● |
| The basisThe findings, their sources and the certainty of each | – | ● | ● |
| Why the evidence supports itHow the findings connect to the position | – | – | ● |
| The strongest objection, answeredThe strongest case against, and the answer to it | – | ● | ● |
| Other views consideredThe alternatives and why they were not adopted | – | – | ● |
| Where it is weakThe main weakness, what would overturn the position, and the gaps | – | ● | ● |
A Standard assessment runs about 1,200 words and up to 1,500. A Comprehensive assessment runs about 2,600. Brief is not offered for an Assessment.
Choosing a length
Choose Standard for most positions. Choose Comprehensive when the position will be challenged by people who hold another view, so the alternatives and the reasoning behind the support are on the page.
The standards and practice behind it
The structure and the checks come from published practice in auditing, evidence synthesis, regulatory science and argument. These are the references we drew on and what we took from each. None of their authors has reviewed the template.
| What we took | From | Where it shows |
|---|---|---|
| State the opinion first, and put the basis for it directly after | International Standard on Auditing 700 (Revised), Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements (IAASB)1 | The position comes first and the basis follows it, before any objection |
| Rate the certainty of evidence as high, moderate, low or very low on five domains | Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, chapter 14, and the GRADE approach2,3 | The certainty column in the basis table, with the reason for each rating |
| Describe uncertainty by its type, so a reader can see what kind of doubt remains | A model structure for describing uncertainties in benefit-risk assessment of oncology drug applications (Zafiropoulos and colleagues, Frontiers in Medicine, 2025)4 | The weakness register in the closing section |
| Restate the opposing view so well its holder would accept it, name what you agree with and what you learned, and only then rebut | Rapoport’s rules, as set out by Daniel Dennett in Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking5 | The strongest objection is stated fairly before it is answered |
What it will not do
It does not recommend an action. An assessment says how well a position is supported; a Decision Memo recommends what to do.
Certainty ratings are analyst judgment from an AI specialist, not measurements, and the reason for each is on the page so you can disagree with it.
It does not settle a question the evidence leaves open. Where the evidence is thin, the assessment says so and says what would settle it.
References
- [1] International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 700 (Revised): Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements. Effective for periods ending on or after 15 December 2016. The ordering requirement (Opinion first, Basis for Opinion directly after) was confirmed against the standard’s text in the template review of 8 October 2026.
- [2] Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Confirmed in the template review of 8 October 2026; the page could not be re-opened for this page.
- [3] Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 2008;336(7650):924–926. DOI 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.
- [4] Zafiropoulos, N. et al. A model structure for describing uncertainties in benefit-risk assessment of oncology drug applications. Frontiers in Medicine, 2025;12. DOI 10.3389/fmed.2025.1589578. An oncology paper used here as a structure, not as a claim about other fields. The four uncertainty types are as confirmed in the template review of 8 October 2026.
- [5] Dennett, D. C. Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. W. W. Norton, 2013. Rapoport’s rules as summarized in The Marginalian. A secondary summary; the book was not read.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
Use cases for the Assessment
8 ready-to-run use cases. Each opens its own page with the question, the specialists, the standards and the references.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.