建立產品研究知識庫，再開始寫 PRD

在 Wenlan 裡查看這個範例

Wenlan v0.18.3 介面，呈現隔離測試後讀回的資料。來源是虛構教學資料，參考答案為這次練習人工編寫；畫面沒有展示 AI 自動生成或審批完成。

放大查看

全圖放大細節

關閉圖片

滑動圖片，查看放大後的細節。

開啟原圖

放大查看

全圖放大細節

關閉圖片

滑動圖片，查看放大後的細節。

開啟原圖

引用的來源變更後，Wenlan 將頁面標記為過期，正文仍保留原文。這裡的「updating…」表示等待重建，不代表已完成修正。請先檢查變更的來源，再重建並審查新答案。

1. 01research-note-a.mdResearch note A — source-linked review+

   # 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.

2. 02research-note-b.mdResearch note B — local-only request+

   # 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.

3. 03research-note-c.mdResearch note C — conflicting product request+

   # 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.