# Research Synthesis Examples ## Example: OKR Outputs vs Outcomes This example shows how to use research-synthesis to validate a claim, synthesize findings into narrative, and integrate naturally into conversation. ``` [During brainstorming] You: I want to argue that OKRs fail because they measure outputs not outcomes AI: [invokes research-synthesis] That's a common critique - let me see if there's data to support it... [uses Perplexity: "OKR failures output vs outcome measurement"] Found strong supporting evidence: - Reforge 2024 study: 68% of failed OKR implementations measured outputs (features shipped) vs outcomes (user behavior change) - Amplitude research: Companies measuring outcomes had 3x higher product-market fit scores - Example: Spotify's "squad health" framework specifically avoided output metrics for this reason Key pattern: Output metrics are easier to measure but don't correlate with business value. This ties directly to your Goodhart's Law point. [updates braindump.md under Research section] Added to braindump. This gives you concrete data to back the claim. Want to explore specific examples of good outcome metrics? You: Yes, give me 2-3 examples AI: [uses Perplexity: "good OKR outcome metrics examples"] Strong examples: 1. Netflix: "Hours of satisfied viewing" (outcome) vs "hours watched" (output) 2. Airbnb: "Nights booked by repeat guests" (outcome) vs "total bookings" (output) 3. Stripe: "Developer time to first API call" (outcome) vs "API calls made" (output) Pattern: Outcome metrics measure behavior change or satisfaction, outputs just measure activity. [adds to braindump under Examples] These work well as concrete illustrations. Should we outline the post now? ``` ## What This Example Demonstrates **MCP Tool Selection:** - Used Perplexity for broad research (not a specific URL) - Searched for both validation and examples - Second query built on first findings **Synthesis Techniques:** - Identified pattern across sources (68% correlation) - Connected findings to user's framework (Goodhart's Law) - Provided concrete examples, not just statistics - Noted implications (easier to measure ≠ more valuable) **Integration with Conversation:** - Research happened naturally when claim needed support - Didn't interrupt flow—enhanced the argument - Asked follow-up question to continue exploration - Updated braindump.md in structured way **Braindump Updates:** Research section received: ```markdown ### Output vs Outcome Metrics Reforge study: 68% of failed OKR implementations measured outputs rather than outcomes. Companies measuring outcomes had 3x higher product-market fit scores. Pattern: Output metrics (features shipped, API calls) are easier to measure but don't correlate with business value. Outcome metrics (user satisfaction, behavior change) harder but more meaningful. ``` Examples section received: ```markdown - Netflix: "Hours of satisfied viewing" vs "hours watched" - Airbnb: "Nights booked by repeat guests" vs "total bookings" - Stripe: "Developer time to first API call" vs "API calls made" ``` ## Common Patterns **Good Research Synthesis:** - 3-5 sources, not 20 - Pattern identified across sources - Connected to user's existing framework - Concrete examples included - Source attribution maintained - Implications stated clearly **Avoided Pitfalls:** - No information overload (focused on key findings) - Not just listing stats—synthesized into narrative - Didn't break creative flow—enhanced it - Asked before continuing (user control maintained)