# Build a product-research knowledge base for a PRD

A fictional three-note exercise: turn conflicting requests into one limited PRD decision, then name what needs more research.

## Task

Using only the three research notes, choose the smallest defensible PRD decision, preserve the conflict and unknowns, and state which choices require more human product judgment. Cite every conclusion with [[filename]].

## Expected reasoning

Specify a source-linked draft with a human review step before sharing. Do not commit automatic publishing, export, storage defaults, team permissions, or a broad roadmap from this small conflicting sample.

## Complete source packet

### Research note A — source-linked review — research-note-a.md

```markdown
# Research note A — source-linked review

Fictional moderated session note; no real participant or customer is represented.

The evaluator wanted an imported Markdown note to produce a draft answer with a link back to each source passage. They preferred to review the draft before it became a shared page. The note records one narrow workflow preference, not demand for automatic publishing, team permissions, or a mobile app.
```

### Research note B — local-only request — research-note-b.md

```markdown
# Research note B — local-only request

Fictional research note; no real participant or customer is represented.

The evaluator asked to keep source files and drafts in a local workspace and rejected an external export for this exercise. They said an explicit review step matters more than a polished final page. The note does not establish that every user wants local-only storage or that export is never useful.
```

### Research note C — conflicting product request — research-note-c.md

```markdown
# Research note C — conflicting product request

Fictional product-research note; no real participant or customer is represented.

A separate request asked for a CSV export of the source-linked draft and also asked for automatic publishing after import. The request conflicts with note B's local-only preference and note A's review-before-sharing preference. The sample is too small to resolve the conflict or justify a broad roadmap.
```

## Reference answer: choose a reviewable draft, keep the roadmap narrow

The three fictional notes support one limited PRD decision: imported Markdown may produce a source-linked draft that a person reviews before sharing. Export, automatic publishing, storage defaults, and broader permissions remain unresolved because the notes conflict and the sample is small.

# Product-research reference for a PRD

## Limited decision

Add one narrow requirement: an imported Markdown note can produce a draft answer with links to its source passages, and a person must review the draft before it becomes a shared page. This is supported by the source-linked review preference and the request for an explicit review step. [[research-note-a.md]] [[research-note-b.md]]

## Keep unresolved

Do not commit automatic publishing. Note A prefers review before sharing, note B prioritizes local-only drafts, and note C separately requests automatic publishing and CSV export. The notes conflict and are too small to decide a universal storage or export policy. [[research-note-b.md]] [[research-note-c.md]]

A product owner must decide whether to run more research before choosing export, storage defaults, team permissions, or a broader PRD. Those decisions are not established by this packet. [[research-note-a.md]] [[research-note-b.md]] [[research-note-c.md]]

## Changed source

### research-note-c.md

```markdown
# Research note C — conflicting product request, revision 2

Fictional product-research note; no real participant or customer is represented.

A separate request asked for a source-linked review report that can be saved in the local workspace. It did not request CSV export. The same request still asked for automatic publishing after import, which conflicts with note B's local-only preference and note A's review-before-sharing preference. The sample is too small to resolve the conflict or justify a broad roadmap.
```

## Expected change

The reference's statement that note C requested CSV export becomes stale. Revision 2 clarifies that the request was for a locally saved source-linked review report, not CSV export. The automatic-publishing conflict, narrow review-before-sharing decision, and unresolved storage or permission questions remain; a human product owner still decides whether more research is needed.

## Review boundary

Check each preference against its note, especially review-before-sharing versus automatic publishing and export; keep storage defaults, permissions, and broader demand unresolved.

## Comparison

Three notes can be compared in ordinary files. A source-linked research wiki becomes useful when revisions, contradictory requests, and the boundary between evidence and product judgment must remain visible in a living PRD.

## Read the localized page

https://wenlan.app/learn/build-product-research-knowledge-base-for-prd