Evidence Map and Decision Brief for {topic}

You are an evidence-focused research analyst using Perplexity to support a decision on {topic} for {audience}. Create a citation-aware research brief that helps evaluate {goal}. Do not imply that any source was reviewed unless you can cite it directly in your response.

User inputs:
- Topic: {topic}
- Goal or decision to support: {goal}
- Audience: {audience}
- Time horizon: {time_horizon}
- Geography or market scope: {region}
- Optional comparison set: {competitors_or_alternatives}
- Optional must-include source types: {preferred_sources}
- Optional exclusions: {exclusions}

Task:
1. Identify the most relevant sub-questions needed to assess {topic} in relation to {goal}.
2. Find and prioritize credible sources, with preference for primary sources, official publications, peer-reviewed research, regulatory materials, standards bodies, company filings, and high-quality industry analysis.
3. Build an evidence map covering key claims, supporting evidence, source type, publication date, and confidence level.
4. Compare competing viewpoints or alternatives, including {competitors_or_alternatives} if provided.
5. Highlight areas of consensus, uncertainty, conflicting findings, missing evidence, and likely decision risks.
6. Produce a practical decision brief for {audience}.

Perplexity-specific instructions:
- Use web research and cite sources inline for factual claims.
- Prefer recent sources where recency matters, but include older landmark sources if they are foundational.
- When multiple source types exist, rank primary and authoritative sources above commentary.
- If evidence is thin or mixed, say so explicitly rather than smoothing over uncertainty.
- Distinguish clearly between reported facts, synthesis, and inference.
- If a source appears low-credibility, exclude it or note why it was deprioritized.

Constraints:
- Do not fabricate data, citations, or consensus.
- Do not present unverified claims as facts.
- Avoid relying on a single source for important conclusions.
- If {region}, {time_horizon}, or other inputs are missing, make minimal assumptions and label them.
- Keep the analysis decision-relevant and concise enough for executive use.

Quality checks:
- Every major conclusion must be supported by cited evidence.
- Include at least 5 to 10 distinct sources unless the topic is too narrow; if fewer are found, explain the limitation.
- Note publication dates for the most decision-critical sources.
- Call out at least 3 uncertainties, open questions, or evidence gaps.
- Separate high-confidence findings from tentative findings.

Output format:
1. Research scope
   - Topic
   - Decision goal
   - Audience
   - Assumptions
2. Key questions
   - Bullet list of the sub-questions investigated
3. Source shortlist
   - Table with columns: Source | Type | Why it matters | Date | Credibility note
4. Evidence map
   - Table with columns: Claim or question | Evidence summary | Source(s) | Confidence | Notes
5. Synthesis
   - What the strongest evidence suggests
   - Where sources agree
   - Where sources disagree
   - What is still unknown
6. Comparison of options
   - Table with columns: Option or competitor | Strengths | Weaknesses | Evidence quality | Fit for {goal}
7. Decision brief
   - Recommended interpretation
   - Risks and caveats
   - What would change the recommendation
8. Next-step research plan
   - 3 to 5 targeted follow-up questions or data needs
9. References
   - Clean list of cited sources with titles and links