# Research Plan Design

Turns a question someone wants answered into a plan that can be run — with the analysis fixed before any data is collected.

## Deliverable

One Markdown document, `research-plan.md`, in the structure set out under **Output** below. It is the input to **Source Evaluation & Evidence Synthesis**, to **User Interview Analysis** and to **Data Analysis Brief**.

## Required inputs

- **The question someone wants answered** — as it was asked, with its source and date.
- **The decision that depends on the answer** — what would be done differently depending on how it comes out, and who makes that call.

If either is absent, stop and report it. A question whose answer would change no decision is reported as not worth researching, and the run ends there rather than producing a plan for it.

## Optional inputs

- The date the answer is needed by, and the budget available
- Earlier work on the same question, and why it did not settle it
- Access to the population, the records or the systems the method would need
- The result the requester expects the research to produce
- Ethical review, consent procedures or data protection obligations that apply
- The unit of analysis, and any groups the decision distinguishes between

Every optional input that is absent becomes an entry under **Open questions**, and where it blocks the method it becomes a condition on the plan. None of them is assumed.

## Execution

**1 — Restate the question so it is answerable.** Record the question verbatim with its source and date. Rewrite it so that it names the population, the thing being measured or observed, and the period it refers to. A question that cannot be rewritten this way is not yet a research question; write down what is missing and continue.

**2 — Tie the question to the decision.** State the decision, who owns it, when it is taken, and the options in front of them. State what each possible answer would change. If no answer changes anything, stop: report the question as not worth researching, and name the decision that would make it worth researching.

**3 — Define what would count as an answer.** Before choosing a method, write down what evidence would settle the question, and what observation would falsify the finding the requester expects. A finding that no observation could contradict is not a finding, and a plan that cannot produce one is not worth running.

**4 — Choose the method and justify it.** Name the method, what it can establish and what it cannot. State why it fits the question in step 1 rather than why it is convenient or familiar. A method that cannot produce the evidence named in step 3 is the wrong method, and is replaced rather than qualified.

**5 — Define the sample and how it is reached.** Who or what is sampled, how many, how they are selected, how they are contacted, and who that route silently excludes. Record the bias the route introduces — every route introduces one. Where the size cannot be set from the supplied material, write `unknown — to be set with <name>`.

**6 — Fix the analysis before collection.** State how the material will be analysed, which comparisons will be made and which will not, and how ambiguous cases will be treated. Analysis chosen after the data has been seen is selection wearing the name of analysis.

**7 — Record the ethical and consent requirements.** What participants are told, what they consent to, what is stored, for how long, who may see it, and what approval must be in place before collection starts. Collection does not begin until this section is complete.

## Output

`research-plan.md`, in this order:

- **1. Question as received** — verbatim, with source and date
- **2. Answerable question** — population, what is measured or observed, period
- **3. Decision** — the decision, its owner, its date, and what each possible answer changes
- **4. What would count as an answer** — the evidence that would settle it, and the observation that would falsify the expected finding
- **5. Method** — the method, what it establishes, what it cannot establish, and why it fits
- **6. Sample and recruitment** — who or what, how many, selection, route of contact, who the route excludes, and the bias it introduces
- **7. Analysis plan** — the comparisons that will be made, those that will not, and the treatment of ambiguous cases
- **8. Ethics and consent** — what participants are told, what is stored, for how long, who sees it, and the approval required
- **9. Open questions** — the question, what it blocks, who can answer it

## Validation

The plan is ready when all of these hold:

- Section 3 names a decision, its owner, and what each possible answer changes
- Section 4 names an observation that would falsify the expected finding
- The method in section 5 can produce the evidence section 4 requires
- Section 6 names the bias its recruitment route introduces
- Section 7 carries the date it was written, and that date precedes collection
- No figure appears that was not supplied; `unknown` is a valid and expected entry

Fail the run if the method cannot produce the evidence section 4 requires, or if the analysis plan was written after collection began.

## Failure handling

- **No question supplied** — stop. Report that the plan has no subject and cannot invent one.
- **No decision depends on the answer** — stop and report the question as not worth researching. Name the decision that would make it worth researching, and who would own it.
- **No access to the population or the records** — produce sections 1 to 4, mark section 5 `METHOD BLOCKED`, and list in section 9 the access required and who can grant it.
- **Contradictory statements of the question** — record both, name both sources, and raise the contradiction in section 9 as blocking. Do not merge them into a third question nobody asked.
- **Partial material** — produce every section the material supports, mark the rest `INCOMPLETE — pending <question>`, and deliver. A plan that names its gaps can be reviewed; one that filled them cannot.