-
Did the logic used in the research make sense?
- Auditors focus on the Research Strategy section, ensuring the analyst’s logical approach.
- Logical means all assumptions, triangulations, and proxies are based on facts, and analysts didn’t make any unexplained leaps in logic.
- Any logical issues that could not be avoided are clearly explained.
- i.e., if we utilized data from 2022 to triangulate 2024 numbers, we would surely state that we ASSUMED little change from 2022 to 2024.
- Auditors pay special attention to client updates (full and partial).
- Three logical strategies for client updates before declaring the information unavailable.
- Auditors DO NOT judge the strategy to see if it is the “best” strategy.
- Auditors make sure it is logical.
Common Issues:
- Not making a mention of how trends/top was determined.
- Only two strategies were provided for the original information, and the third strategy describes how helpful the findings were.
- Making assumptions without clearly explaining them; making illogical assumptions.
<aside>
⚠️ Note: If the information is easily found (i.e., directly in search results) but the analyst has declared a CU/PCU, this is handled as a special circumstance and referred to Lisa for quality management.
</aside>
-
Was the research well organized?
- Auditors look at basic formatting.
- Is the report divided into headers?
- Are headers in title/bold as makes sense, etc.?
Common Issues:
- Using italics for headers
- Not using headers
- Only using one header in a long report.
-
Chat GPT - The transcript is attached in the comment section and shows a good-faith effort to use the tool.
- Auditors look for an honest attempt at using GPT, including multiple (5+) prompts, changing prompts if the answer is not obtained, etc.
Common Issues:
- Forgetting to attach the chat.
- Using the wrong URL so it is not viewable.
- Not using enough prompts.
-
Did the analyst base the research on credible sources?
- Auditors scan through the source list as well as spot-check a few sources in the research, looking for the following:
- Sources that are editable by anyone (open source).
- Sources that are out of date.
- Biased sources
- Examples: Company sources declaring using their product as a best practice, or political sources focusing only on one point of view.
Common Issue: Out-of-Date!
-
Included was a summary that was relevant and/or answered the client’s question, if applicable.
- Summary of 2-3 sentences that provide information instead of re-listing RCs.
- Data Visualization (checking the request notes if one is not included for an explanation) and proper attachment of deliverables (unless otherwise directed by research criteria).
Common Issues:
- Summary too long
- Missing data visualization with no explanation
-
Included a Creative Solutions section to address any data availability issues.
- We need a creative solutions section whenever assumptions, proxies, triangulations, or older sources are used. Include this section if there is anything potentially confusing or unusual with how the information was found!
Common Issues:
- Forgetting the section
- Not directing the client to the RS as the last bullet point of the section.
-
Used Notes to explain assumptions, proxies, triangulations, or other potentially confusing client experiences.
Common Issue: Notes are not formatted correctly.
-
Included was a research strategy that named at least one specific source.
Common Issues:
- Did not cite or name any source in the research strategy
- Did not cite at least one source for each of the three strategies in CU/PCU.