Write a brief that produces a useful answer

Describe the task in one sentence

Most weak pages start from a topic (“write about sports massage”) instead of a task. The UK government’s service manual gives a useful format for stating a need: I need to… so that…, optionally prefaced by As a… to say who has the need, When… to say what triggers it and Because… to note a constraint.^[1] It was written for service design, but it works as the first line of a content brief, because it forces you to name the reader and their reason.

If you cannot write the sentence, you are not ready to write the page. Add the target query and the intent label from the search intent chapter, plus the one action the page should lead to.

Plan the evidence before the outline

Google’s people-first guidance frames quality around three questions: who created the content, how it was created and why. It asks for clear authorship, an honest account of how the content was produced, including any automation or AI involvement, and a primary purpose of helping people.^[2] The brief is where you answer them. Before outlining, list what you can contribute that another page cannot: first-hand projects, measurements, screenshots, process documents, customer questions and decisions you have made.

The gaps are the point. A claim with no evidence becomes research, an honest qualification or a cut. Google notes that generative AI can be useful when researching a topic and adding structure to original content, but that using it to produce many pages without adding value may violate its policy on scaled content abuse.^[3] The same standard applies whoever drafts the text: the page needs something real to say.

Outline the decision path

Outline by the order in which the reader’s questions arise, not by the order in which you want to talk. The first section answers the main question. The next ones handle what a careful reader asks next: what changes the answer, what it costs, what could go wrong, how it compares with the alternative and what to do now. Put the objections that would stop the next step into the outline, using the FAQ and objections chapter.

Write acceptance checks

A brief without checks cannot be reviewed except by taste. Write conditions a second person can verify without asking what you meant.

Use AI assistance with an evidence handoff

Google’s position is not “never use AI”: the guidance says generative AI can help with research and structure, and its concern is quantity without value.^[3] It also makes the risk plain: generative models do not retrieve facts but predict a likely sequence of words, so their output may contain inaccuracies, and it is critical to fact-check and review all AI-generated content before publishing. That review extends to the metadata, such as title elements, meta descriptions, structured data and alt text.^[3] And the guide on optimizing for generative AI adds that content made with AI must meet the same spam policies as any other.^[4]

Write the section "How long does a website take?" for the reader in the brief.
Use only the facts in the evidence pack below. Do not add numbers, names or claims
that are not in it. Where the pack does not support a statement, write
[GAP: what is missing] instead. Start with a two-sentence answer and its main
condition. Keep the first-person plural voice. Do not invent quotations.

BRIEF: ...
EVIDENCE PACK: ...

The prompt does the same work a good editor would: it limits the writer to supported facts, makes gaps visible and fixes the answer-first structure. Review everything that comes back as if a stranger wrote it. The Who, How and Why questions apply to the result: say who is responsible, and be open about how the page was produced when readers would reasonably want to know.^[2]

Close the loop with a review date

Add an owner and a review date to every brief, and then use them. Content that was accurate at publication goes stale: prices change, platforms update their documentation and your own process improves. Decide how often each page needs checking, such as every three months for platform-dependent pages and yearly for stable ones, and keep the schedule in the same sheet as the briefs.

Apply it to your website

• Every brief starts with a one-sentence task naming the reader, the need and the reason.
• The evidence plan lists what you can contribute first-hand and what must be sourced, and gaps are closed or removed.
• The outline follows the order in which the reader’s questions arise and includes the objections that block the next step.
• Acceptance checks are verifiable by a second person.
• When AI helps, the model is limited to the supplied evidence, gaps are flagged and a person checks every claim.
• Titles, descriptions, structured data and alt text are reviewed as carefully as the body text.
• Each page has a named owner and a review date.