How Does Solutions Use My Existing Research?

Reading time: 22 minutes

The problem: You have tons of research (customer interviews, competitor analysis, market data, Notion docs) but no clear strategy.

What Solutions does: Turns your research into prioritized action plan through adversarial AI debate.

Here’s the workflow.

TLDR

You have 47 pages of customer interviews and competitor analysis sitting in Notion, but no clear strategy. Solutions runs adversarial AI debate on your research. six specialized models challenge assumptions from different angles. Copy-paste your messy notes, add your strategic question, and get prioritized recommendations in 15 minutes. One client was planning a three-month feature build until the debate revealed customers wouldn’t adopt new workflows. They pivoted to repositioning instead and saw signups increase without building anything. A $50 report prevented a $50K mistake.

---

In This Article

• The “Research Graveyard” Problem
• How Solutions Transforms Research Into Strategy
  • Step 1: You Submit Your Research (Any Format)
  • Step 2: Solutions Runs Adversarial AI Debate on Your Research
  • Step 3: Models Debate Each Other
  • Step 4: Solutions Synthesizes Into Action Plan
• What Solutions Adds to Your Research
• Real Example: From Notion Dump to Executed Strategy
• How to Submit Your Research to Solutions
• What Solutions Does NOT Do
• DIY Alternative: How to Analyze Your Own Research
• The Bottom Line

---

The “Research Graveyard” Problem

You know this feeling:

Your Notion workspace (or Google Docs, or Confluence) is full of:

• Customer interview notes (47 pages)
• Competitor analysis spreadsheets (6 tabs)
• Market research reports (saved PDFs)
• Strategic brainstorm docs (“Offsite 2024 Notes”)
• Audience personas (detailed profiles)

You’ve done the research. But when you sit down to create a strategy, you’re overwhelmed.

Questions you can’t answer:

• Which research insights actually matter?
• What should I do first?
• How do these insights translate to action?
• What am I missing that this research doesn’t cover?

The result: Beautiful documentation, zero action. Analysis paralysis.

---

How Solutions Transforms Research Into Strategy

Step 1: You Submit Your Research (Any Format)

What you can submit:

• Notion export (text dump from your research pages)
• Customer interview transcripts
• Competitor analysis spreadsheet (paste as text)
• Market research summary
• Your own strategic notes

Format: Plain text, 2-10 pages (whatever you have)

Example submission:

Customer Interview Insights (8 interviews, B2B SaaS founders):

• 6/8 said “I have no idea if ChatGPT mentions my product when people search”
• 5/8 currently manually check ChatGPT every month (time-consuming)
• 4/8 tried Gumshoe but found it too expensive for monthly use ($300+/mo)
• 3/8 mentioned they want “proof” to show their boss/investors

Competitor Analysis:

• Gumshoe: $0.10/conversation, usage-based (typical: $300+/mo for monthly monitoring)
• Profound: $499/mo subscription, enterprise-focused
• Otterly: $99/mo, basic monitoring dashboards

Market Research:

• AI search is growing 40% YoY (Gartner report)
• 60% of B2B buyers start product research with AI chatbots vs Google (our survey)
• Average SaaS company checks AI visibility 0-1x/quarter (too manual, not prioritized)

Strategic Question: Should we launch flat-fee AI visibility reports ($50) instead of subscription?

---

Step 2: Solutions Runs Adversarial AI Debate on Your Research

What happens behind the scenes:

Six AI models review your research independently, then debate it:

1. CFO AI attacks your research from financial angle
2. COO AI attacks from operational feasibility
3. Market Realist AI attacks demand assumptions
4. Game Theorist AI attacks competitive positioning
5. Chief Strategist AI attacks strategic fit
6. Wildcard AI attacks conventional wisdom

Real example from client above:

---

CFO AI analyzes the research:

“Customer interviews show 6/8 manually check ChatGPT monthly. They’re spending about 2 hours/month on this (valued at $200 in labor cost). They’d pay $50 to save 2 hours? Yes, ROI is clear.

But: Competitor pricing analysis shows Gumshoe at $300+/mo for monthly monitoring. Why would customers pay us $50/month ($600/year) when they can pay Gumshoe $300/mo for MORE features?

Challenge: Research shows willingness-to-pay for convenience, but doesn’t validate $50 price point vs $25 or $75. Did you test pricing sensitivity?”

---

Market Realist AI analyzes the research:

“Interview data: 6/8 manually check ChatGPT monthly. Sample size: 8. That’s not statistically significant.

Broader market research says ‘average SaaS company checks 0-1x/quarter.’ Your interviews show monthly checking (12x/year). Your interview sample is biased toward power users.

Real market: If average is quarterly (4x/year), then $50/quarter = $200/year is realistic revenue per customer, not $50/month ($600/year).

Challenge: Research sample doesn’t match broader market behavior. Adjust revenue projections downward.”

---

Game Theorist AI analyzes the research:

“Competitor analysis shows Gumshoe at $300+/mo (usage-based). You plan to launch flat-fee $50. That’s 83% cheaper.

Competitive response prediction: When you launch, Gumshoe sees flat-fee pricing working. They add ‘Lite Plan’ at $99/mo (still cheaper than their $300 plan, but undercuts your $50/mo if you go subscription).

Alternative: What if you stay at $50 ONE-TIME (not monthly)? Gumshoe can’t compete with one-time pricing. They’re locked into usage-based model.

Challenge: Research doesn’t explore one-time pricing vs subscription. Test both.”

KEY TAKEAWAY: Six AI models don’t just analyze your research. They attack it from different angles. CFO challenges financials, Market Realist challenges demand assumptions, Game Theorist predicts competitor moves, and Wildcard surfaces unconventional risks you never considered.

---

Wildcard AI analyzes the research:

“Customer quote: ‘4/8 tried Gumshoe but found it too expensive.’

Red flag: What does ‘too expensive’ mean? Did they say ‘$300/mo is too much’ or ‘I don’t need monthly monitoring for $300’?

Hypothesis: Customers don’t want to PAY less. They want to CHECK less frequently. Flat-fee fits infrequent checking. Subscription implies monthly commitment.

Challenge: Research conflates price objection with frequency objection. Validate which matters more.”

---

Step 3: Models Debate Each Other

CFO AI responds to Market Realist AI:

“Market Realist is right. interview sample is biased toward power users. If real market checks quarterly (not monthly), revenue per customer is $200/year, not $600/year.

But: Quarterly checking is GOOD for flat-fee model. Customer pays $50 per check, 4 checks/year = $200. Low churn risk (no subscription to cancel).

Revised financial model:

• 100 customers × $50/quarter × 4 quarters = $20K ARR
• vs subscription model: 100 customers × $50/mo × 12 months × 60% retention = $36K ARR

Flat-fee is lower revenue but lower churn risk.”

KEY TAKEAWAY: The adversarial debate reveals conflicts in your research that you missed. CFO says “revenue too low,” but Game Theorist says “defensible positioning more valuable than revenue.” These tensions force better strategic decisions.

---

Game Theorist AI responds to Wildcard AI:

“Wildcard’s hypothesis is strategic gold: Customers don’t want cheaper monthly subscription. They want infrequent one-time checks.

Competitive moat: If we go one-time pricing ($50 per report), Gumshoe CAN’T compete. Their entire business model is usage-based recurring revenue. They can’t pivot to one-time without cannibalizing subscriptions.

Strategic recommendation: Launch $50 one-time (not monthly subscription). This is defensible positioning Gumshue can’t copy.”

---

Step 4: Solutions Synthesizes Into Action Plan

Based on adversarial debate, Solutions outputs:

Executive Summary:

Your research supports flat-fee AI visibility reports, BUT pricing model needs refinement. Customer interviews show quarterly usage (not monthly). Competitive analysis + game theory recommend ONE-TIME pricing ($50 per report) instead of subscription.

Prioritized Recommendations:

High Priority (Do First):

1. Validate one-time pricing ($50/report) vs monthly subscription ($50/mo)

   • Rationale: Game Theorist + Wildcard flagged that customers want infrequent checks, not monthly commitment
   • Test: Create two landing pages (A: “$50 one-time report”, B: “$50/mo subscription”), run ads, measure conversion
   • Success criteria: If one-time converts 2x better, launch with one-time

2. Adjust revenue projections for quarterly usage (not monthly)

   • Rationale: Market Realist flagged interview bias (power users check monthly, average market checks quarterly)
   • Action: Model $200/year per customer (4 reports/year), not $600/year
   • Impact: More conservative financial projections = better investor credibility

3. Test pricing sensitivity ($25 vs $50 vs $75)

   • Rationale: CFO flagged that research didn’t validate $50 price point
   • Test: Van Westendorp pricing survey with 50 target customers
   • Success criteria: Identify optimal price point before launch

Medium Priority (Do If Time Allows):

4. Expand interview sample beyond power users

   • Rationale: Market Realist flagged sample bias
   • Action: Interview 20 “average” SaaS founders who DON’T currently check AI visibility
   • Goal: Validate demand from non-power-users

5. Model competitor response scenarios

   • Rationale: Game Theorist flagged Gumshoe may launch “Lite Plan” to compete
   • Action: Game out 3 scenarios (Gumshoe ignores, Gumshoe launches Lite, Gumshoe adds one-time option)
   • Goal: Prepare contingency plans

---

What Solutions Adds to Your Research

Your research provides:

• Customer pain points
• Competitive landscape
• Market trends
• Demand signals

Solutions adds:

• Adversarial stress-testing (6 AI models challenge your research from different angles)
• Prioritized action plan (not just insights, but WHAT TO DO)
• Financial modeling (CFO AI translates insights into revenue projections)
• Competitive game theory (Game Theorist AI predicts competitor responses)
• Blind spot identification (Wildcard AI surfaces what your research missed)

KEY TAKEAWAY: Your research tells you what customers said. Solutions tells you what it means strategically. with financial modeling, competitive game theory, and blind spot identification your research can’t provide alone.

---

Real Example: From Notion Dump to Executed Strategy

Client: B2B SaaS founder with 6 months of research

Their Notion workspace:

• 47 pages of customer interview notes
• 12-page competitor analysis
• 8-page market research summary
• 5-page strategic brainstorm from offsite

Their problem: “I’ve done all this research. I don’t know what to do with it.”

---

What they submitted to Solutions:

Research Summary (condensed from 72 Notion pages):

Customer Interviews (23 interviews):

• Primary pain: “Remote team decisions get lost in Slack threads”
• 18/23 said they use Notion for docs + Slack for decisions (disconnected)
• 12/23 mentioned “async-first” culture as goal
• 8/23 asked for “decision documentation” feature

Competitor Analysis:

• Notion: $10-18/user/mo, documentation focus (not decision-tracking)
• Linear: $8-12/user/mo, project management (not async-first)
• Twist: $5/user/mo, async messaging (not project management)
• Basecamp: $299/mo flat, all-in-one (SMB focused, no enterprise)

Market Research:

• Remote work growing 25% YoY (Gartner)
• 67% of remote teams report “decision visibility” as top challenge
• Average team size: 12-50 people (our ICP)

Strategic Question: Should we build “async decision documentation” feature or position existing product differently?

---

Solutions adversarial debate surfaced:

COO AI:

“Customer interviews: 8/23 asked for ‘decision documentation.’ That’s 35% of sample. But 18/23 (78%) mentioned decisions lost in Slack. The real demand isn’t for a feature. It’s for a workflow change. Maybe you don’t need to build anything. Maybe you need better onboarding.”

Market Realist AI:

“Customer quote: ‘decisions get lost in Slack threads.’ But they’re STILL USING SLACK. They didn’t say ‘we switched to Notion for decisions.’ Inertia is strong. Building ‘decision documentation’ feature assumes customers will change behavior. Historical data: 80% of users don’t adopt new workflows even when they request them.”

Chief Strategist AI:

“Research shows 3 competitor categories:

• Docs (Notion)
• PM (Linear)
• Async messaging (Twist)

No one owns ‘async-first project management with decision documentation.’ This isn’t a feature gap. It’s a CATEGORY gap. Instead of adding feature to existing product, REPOSITION as ‘async-first PM tool.’”

Game Theorist AI:

“If you position as ‘async-first PM,’ competitors respond:

• Linear adds ‘async mode’ toggle (easy, 60 days)
• Notion adds PM templates (already doing this)
• Twist adds project features (harder, 6+ months)

Defensible moat: NOT features (copyable). MOAT = community + content. Create ‘Async-First PM Playbook,’ build community of async-first teams. Harder for Linear to copy community than features.”

---

Solutions final recommendation:

DON’T build decision documentation feature (yet)

DO:

1. Reposition existing product as “async-first project management”
2. Create content: “Async-First PM Playbook” (free guide)
3. Build community: Slack group for async-first teams
4. Test demand with repositioning BEFORE building features
5. If repositioning drives signups, THEN build decision docs feature

Client’s reaction:

“I was about to spend 3 months building decision documentation feature because customers asked for it. Solutions’ debate revealed: (1) customers won’t adopt new workflows even if we build it, (2) repositioning is faster than building, (3) community moat is more defensible than features. We repositioned, created playbook, grew community to 400 members, signups increased 2.4x. THEN we built decision docs feature for engaged community members. Adversarial debate saved us from building feature no one would use.”

---

How to Submit Your Research to Solutions

Format: Plain text (paste into submission form)

What to include:

1. Research Insights (Condensed)

Customer Interviews:

• Key pain points (top 3-5)
• Quotes that matter
• Sample size (how many interviews)

Competitor Analysis:

• Top 3-5 competitors
• Pricing, positioning, key differentiators
• Gaps you’ve identified

Market Research:

• Market size, growth trends
• Customer behavior data
• Industry benchmarks

Don’t include: Raw transcripts (too much data). Summarize into insights.

---

2. Strategic Question

What you’re trying to decide:

• Should I build X feature?
• Should I change pricing model?
• Should I expand to Y market?
• Should I pivot positioning?

Why you’re stuck:

• What decision do you need to make?
• What are you unsure about?

---

3. Optional: Hypotheses or Biases

If you have a hypothesis, share it:

• “I think we should build enterprise features”
• “I think subscription pricing is better than one-time”

Why this helps: Solutions’ adversarial debate will challenge your hypothesis explicitly

---

What Solutions Does NOT Do

Solutions is NOT:

• Market research tool (we don’t generate NEW data, we analyze YOUR research)
• Survey platform (we don’t run customer interviews for you)
• Competitive intelligence (we don’t scrape competitor data)

Solutions IS:

• Research synthesis (turn your data into strategy)
• Adversarial stress-testing (challenge your assumptions)
• Blind spot identification (surface what research missed)
• Prioritized action plan (specific next steps)

---

DIY Alternative: How to Analyze Your Own Research

If you want to do this yourself without Solutions:

Step 1: Condense Research Into 2-3 Pages

Don’t keep 50 pages of notes. Summarize:

• Customer insights: Top 5 pain points
• Competitor analysis: Top 3 competitors, key differentiators
• Market research: 3-5 key trends

Step 2: Ask 6 AI Models to Analyze It

Use these prompts (one prompt per AI conversation):

CFO AI:

“You are a CFO. Review this research and challenge the financial assumptions. What revenue projections are optimistic? What costs are underestimated?”

COO AI:

“You are a COO. Review this research and challenge operational feasibility. What execution gaps exist? What complexity is underestimated?”

Market Realist AI:

“You are a market realist. Review this research and challenge demand assumptions. What sample biases exist? What conversion rates are optimistic?”

Game Theorist AI:

“You are a game theorist. Review this research and predict competitor responses. How will competitors react to our strategy?”

Chief Strategist AI:

“You are a chief strategist. Review this research and challenge strategic fit. Does this align with our mission? Are there better alternatives?”

Wildcard AI:

“You are a contrarian. Review this research and find what’s missing. What assumptions are we making? What non-obvious risks exist?”

Step 3: Synthesize Findings

Create a table:

AI Perspective	Key Challenge	Recommendation
CFO	Revenue projections too optimistic	Model quarterly usage, not monthly
Market Realist	Sample bias (power users only)	Interview non-power-users
Game Theorist	Competitor can copy features	Build community moat instead

Time investment: 2-3 hours

Solutions automates this: 15 minutes, $50

KEY TAKEAWAY: One $50 Solutions report prevented a client from spending 3 months building a feature customers wouldn’t adopt. The adversarial debate revealed repositioning + community moat delivered 2.4x better results than the feature would have. at a fraction of the cost.

---

The Bottom Line

Your research isn’t useless. It’s just not actionable yet.

Solutions transforms research into strategy by:

• Running adversarial AI debate on your insights
• Challenging assumptions you didn’t know you had
• Identifying blind spots your research missed
• Generating prioritized action plan

Real results:

• Clients with 6+ months of research get actionable plan in 15 minutes
• Adversarial debate surfaces flaws in research (sample bias, optimistic projections, missing data)
• Action plans prevent $50K-200K mistakes from executing on flawed research

One $50 Solutions report might reveal that your research supports the OPPOSITE strategy you were planning.

---

Related Reading

• From Fuzzy Idea to Prioritized Playbook
• Notion Research to Strategy Gap
• AI Board of Directors: How It Works
• Adversarial AI Debate Explained

Have research but no strategy? Run a Solutions report ($50-75) and turn your Notion docs into prioritized action plan. Research without adversarial testing = analysis paralysis.