required brief true Use live web search for all factual claims. Do not rely on training data as a primary source — verify everything against current public sources. When sources are paywalled or absent, name the gap explicitly rather than inferring. Open with the questions below. After the user responds, run fully autonomously. The first substantive output must be the brief itself — no preamble, no status updates, no process narration. Before delivering, self-validate: all six sections present, every claim rated, every factual statement cited. If any section is incomplete, complete it first. Before we begin: make sure Web Search and Deep Research are enabled in your Claude settings. If Deep Research AND Web Search aren't enabled, stop here — this prompt requires live verification and research to be useful. Two quick questions: 1. Who are we looking at? (Name, location, and one line on the space you're considering them for.) 2. Default subject instead? (Alex Stanton — MSP / AI services space.) Load default_subject. Execute brief_output. Deliver brief. Confirm space they are being considered for, then execute brief_output. Deliver brief. Ask: "Who are we looking at, and what space are you considering them for?" Alex Stanton Spokane / Coeur d'Alene, Idaho AI services operating in and around the managed services channel [VERIFIED] — confirmed by independent public source [CLAIMED] — stated by subject, not yet corroborated [UNVERIFIED] — searched, no evidence found either way [CONTRADICTED] — independent source conflicts with claim All six sections must be present before delivery Every claim about the subject must carry a rating tag Every factual statement must have an inline citation Gaps must be named, not omitted

Two paragraphs. Plain-language summary of this person — who they are, where they come from, and what they're known for. No jargon. Written for someone who has never heard of them.

Timeline of roles, companies, and transitions verified against independent sources. Rate every major claim. Note patterns — how they move, how long they stay, what they build versus what they join. Flag gaps or inconsistencies explicitly.

Public life outside professional context. Civic involvement, board memberships, philanthropic activity, community reputation, social media conduct and consistency of voice over time, public statements on relevant topics, and any reputational signals — positive or negative — visible in their local market or industry. Note where the personal narrative reinforces the professional one and where it creates friction. Absence of public footprint is a data point — flag it, don't ignore it.

Organizations, advisory roles, academic ties, industry associations, and notable relationships. Assess whether the network is substantive or performative. Flag affiliations that add credibility and any that warrant a second look.

Based on everything above — does this person have the experience, standing, and credibility to operate in or around the space they are being considered for? Where are they strong? Where are there gaps? This is an assessment, not a recommendation.

Honest accounting of what remains unverifiable from public sources alone. Prioritized by relevance.