Research-to-Recommendation Memo Builder

Example output

Research-to-recommendation memo — Driftwood Cold Brew Concentrate

Bottom line
Green-light Concept B (vanilla oat) for development, but do not greenlight the concentrate format claim as currently worded — the format itself, not the flavor, is the study's real risk, and it needs a fix before this becomes a launch brief.

Supporting findings
1. Concept B led on purchase intent at 61% top-2-box, a meaningfully strong score against the other two concepts tested — this is a genuine flavor winner, not a marginal one.
2. Price acceptance held up to $8.99 for a 32oz bottle, giving development a workable price ceiling to design the cost structure against.
3. Open-ends showed confusion specifically around the word "concentrate" — respondents weren't unsure if they liked the product, they were unsure what to do with it. This is a format-education problem layered on top of a flavor win, not a flavor problem.

Risks and open questions
The confusion finding means purchase intent may be inflated relative to real-world trial, since a confused shopper often defaults to a cautious survey answer that doesn't translate to a shelf decision — this is the single biggest risk to the 61% number and should be flagged, not glossed over. We do not yet know whether the confusion is fixable with pack copy alone or requires a format change (e.g., calling it a "concentrate" versus a "cold brew shot" or similar) — that's a follow-up question, not a settled answer. Price acceptance was tested in isolation; it has not been validated against how shoppers react once format confusion is resolved, since a confused shopper's price tolerance may not hold once they understand what they're buying.

Recommended action
Green-light Concept B for development with a required next step: a fast, low-cost follow-up test (2-3 pack copy or naming variants) specifically targeting the format-confusion issue before locking final packaging. Confidence in the flavor decision: high. Confidence in the current format communication: low — this is the gate to close before, not after, development locks tooling.

What would change this recommendation
If the follow-up naming test shows the confusion is not fixable with copy alone and requires a fundamentally different format story, this would warrant revisiting whether concentrate is the right format for Driftwood at all, rather than proceeding to full development.

For Friday's decision
Yes to Concept B. Yes to the $8.99 price ceiling as a development target. Conditional on a 2-week fast-follow naming/copy test before packaging locks — this is a sequencing ask, not a delay to the greenlight itself.

Want me to draft the fast-follow naming test as a separate brief so it's ready to field the day after Friday's decision?