Writing policy briefs that admit what you do not know

Capstone participants often arrive wanting a slick answer. We push back: the useful internal brief states the claim, the strongest counterevidence, and the data gaps that would change the conclusion. That structure builds trust faster than polished rhetoric.

We borrow from academic norms without pretending to be a journal: citations to primary instruments, clear separation between facts and inference, and a limitations paragraph that is not boilerplate. If your brief cannot name what would falsify your recommendation, it is not ready.

This mirrors how we want ASEAN trade analysis to show up inside firms—less TED-talk certainty, more disciplined curiosity.