The one-page policy brief
Listen to this lesson
Nigerian voice narration
Fictional training case. Adeyemi's findings are ready but the Director-General reads one page, not forty. This lesson covers structuring a one-page brief (finding-style title, problem, evidence, options with trade-offs, recommendation) and stress-testing it from the reader's perspective. Work through the example, identify the evidence needed and practise the method with cleared or synthetic inputs. Any additional figures in the explanation are separate practice examples, not claimed rows in a downloadable file.
Worked example
Adeyemi asks AI to turn her findings into a one-page brief: a finding-style title ('AI Tools Cut Drafting Time by 35% But Raise Accuracy Concerns'), a 3-bullet problem statement, 3-bullet evidence summary, three policy options (mandate training, pilot in 3 MDAs first, no action) each with trade-offs, and one clear recommendation. She then asks AI to critique the brief 'as a busy Director-General' — the critique flags that the evidence bullets cite percentages without stating sample sizes, making them hard to judge, and that the recommendation ('pilot in 3 MDAs') lacks a timeframe. Adeyemi fixes both issues: adding '(n=50 officers)' to the evidence and 'within 2 months' to the recommendation.
The method
Build the brief in the fixed structure (title/problem/evidence/options with trade-offs/recommendation), then run a self-critique prompt asking AI to read it as the specific busy decision-maker who will receive it, fixing any gap the critique surfaces (such as missing sample sizes or missing timeframes) before finalising.
Worked practice and common mistakes
State the decision needed, who can make it, limitations and options with trade-offs. Percentages require sample size and population; 35% alone is incomplete. A survey association cannot support a causal promise. When evidence is promising but limited, propose a small pilot with an owner, cost ceiling and review measure rather than recommending a full rollout as guaranteed success.
Review before using the result
A policy brief leads with the finding and recommendation, not methodology. Options should show honest trade-offs. The recommendation should be a single, actionable ask the reader can actually grant.
Your workplace practice
Use the recommended free assistant with this lesson's fictional example. Turn my findings below into a one-page policy brief: a finding-style title, 3-bullet problem, 3-bullet evidence, 3 options with trade-offs, and one clear recommendation. Then critique it as a busy DG would. Keep a copy of the input and draft. Compare the result with the verification steps above, record any correction, and retain placeholders where evidence is missing. The expected result is a checked draft for human review, not an automatically approved decision. Course examples and practice responses are fictional; amounts, dates, rules and thresholds are not official guidance or supplier quotations.
Open Claude (free tier) and paste this prompt there. Concise, well-argued writing — perfect for a one-page brief.
Turn my findings below into a one-page policy brief: a finding-style title, 3-bullet problem, 3-bullet evidence, 3 options with trade-offs, and one clear recommendation. Then critique it as a busy DG would.
Why this tool: Concise, well-argued writing — perfect for a one-page brief.
Hit a free limit? Switch to ChatGPT or Gemini and continue — the prompt works in any assistant.