---

name: policy-brief
description: "Translate research evidence into a policy recommendation memo that accounts for political feasibility and makes a specific, ownable ask."

/policy-brief

Brilliant research sitting in a PDF changes nothing. The gap between a rigorous evidence base and a policy change isn't usually the evidence — it's the translation. Decision-makers are not primarily motivated by what is true; they are motivated by what is politically feasible, what advances their stated agenda, what they can defend to their constituents, and what they can get done in their current term. A policy memo that ignores these constraints is a journal article with a shorter reference section. This skill builds the bridge: here's what the evidence says, here's how it maps to what this decision-maker actually needs, here's who will oppose it and how to neutralize them, here's the specific ask.

The Decision-Maker's Actual Objectives

• Name the decision-maker by title and context: "State Secretary of Education during an election year with a stated platform of closing achievement gaps."
• Their stated objective is a starting point, not the whole picture. What political constraint shapes what they can actually do? "Can't raise taxes." "Must show progress in 90 days." "Answerable to a board with strong teachers' union ties."
• Map your policy recommendation against both the stated objective and the political constraint. If your recommendation requires something they've publicly ruled out, it will die in the first meeting regardless of the evidence.
• Identify the metric they're already tracking and accountable for. That is the metric your recommendation must move.

Stakeholder Opposition Map

• Name the 3-5 stakeholders most likely to oppose this recommendation. For each: why they oppose it (financial interest, ideological, constituency pressure, historical), and how powerful their opposition is.
• For each opponent, name the neutralization strategy. Options: address their concern directly in the proposal, build a coalition that outweighs them, frame the recommendation in terms of their stated priorities, offer them credit for the win, delay implementation until their term ends.
• Also name the 2-3 stakeholders with most to gain — these are your coalition. What do they need from you to become vocal supporters?

Phased Implementation That Minimizes Political Risk

• Political risk is highest at full implementation and near zero at a pilot. Sequence your recommendation accordingly.
• Phase 1: what can be done by executive action without legislative change, within existing budget, and with a visible result in 6 months? This is the opening move.
• Phase 2: what requires budget or legislation, can be justified by Phase 1 results, and builds on coalition support?
• Phase 3: full implementation — only reached if phases 1 and 2 demonstrate outcome.
• Name the narrative at each phase. The decision-maker needs to know what they'll say at each press availability.

Impact in the Metrics the Decision-Maker Already Tracks

• Translate your evidence into the numbers they report. "Our analysis suggests this policy would move graduation rates from 71% to 78% — a change that would be the largest single-year improvement in the state in 20 years."
• If you can't connect your evidence to a metric they're accountable for, you haven't finished the translation. Find the connection or acknowledge the gap explicitly.
• Include a range: conservative, central, and optimistic estimates. Decision-makers distrust single-point projections.

The Ask: Specific, Ownable, Time-Bound

• The ask is the action the decision-maker takes as a result of reading this memo. It must be specific enough that "yes" has a clear operational meaning.
• Bad ask: "Invest in early childhood education."
• Good ask: "Allocate .4M in the Q2 supplemental budget to fund 14 pilot sites for the Read-to-Learn program, with a 12-month evaluation reporting to this office by March."
• Ownable means the decision-maker can attach their name to it and take credit. Make sure the framing gives them that.
• Time-bound means there's a decision window: "This funding window closes with the supplemental budget on March 15."

Rules

1. The ask is one action, specific enough that "yes" has an operational definition.
2. The decision-maker's political constraints are constraints on the recommendation, not obstacles to mention and dismiss.
3. Stakeholder opposition is named and neutralized in the document — not listed as a risk and left.
4. Impact is translated into metrics the decision-maker already tracks. New metrics don't count.
5. Phasing exists to reduce political risk, not to delay. Phase 1 must show visible results in 90 days.
6. If the evidence doesn't support the ask, say so. Credibility is the analyst's only durable asset.

The output is a memo a decision-maker can act on in a single meeting — with the evidence summarized, the coalition built, the opposition addressed, and the ask sitting on the last page waiting for a signature.