Analyst Relations Briefing Template
Three documents and three sheets that read what an analyst actually publishes, then route every inaccuracy by whether it is a fact or a judgment.
Free download · No account needed
Inaccuracy Log
Before Anything Published Has Been Checked
Every note that mentions the company, tagged the day an error is found.
| Inaccuracy | Type | Correction Requested | Landed |
|---|---|---|---|
A factual error gets a correction request with a dated source. An opinion-shaped one gets new evidence at the next briefing instead.
Most vendor briefings open with the same company-overview deck no matter who is on the call. The IIAR's own best-practice paper on running one says the majority of analyst briefings are poorly planned and fail to meet their objectives, when an objective was set at all. Most correction requests get sent the same way too, regardless of what kind of claim was actually wrong, a headcount confused with a competitive ranking.
Bellhaven Systems, a fictional identity and access management vendor, gives this pack its worked example: three analysts at three firms, tracked across fourteen months. Nine published inaccuracies got logged and tagged the day each was found. Six were factual, a headcount, a stale price, a feature marked unsupported two years after it shipped, and every one, requested with a dated source attached, landed in that analyst's next relevant publication. Three were opinion-shaped, a tier assignment, a ranking with no benchmark cited, a call that a roadmap was thin.
Those three got requested the same way, with the same promptness, by the same contacts, and none of them landed, which is the split the type of claim predicts rather than any one relationship. Forrester's own policy admits as much. It will correct material errors quickly once it finds evidence of a factual mistake, while a vendor's evaluative pushback on a Wave score will not get the vendor removed from the evaluation at all.
What's in the pack
Analyst Register
Each analyst's firm, coverage area, stance, and briefing cadence, traced to a specific passage in a specific note rather than to a general impression.
Inaccuracy Log
Every published error tagged factual or opinion the day it is found, then tracked for whether a requested correction actually landed.
Briefing Deck Narrative
Opens with whatever that analyst's own last few notes keep returning to, never a generic overview, and answers any question their most recent note asked.
Q&A Preparation
Every anticipated question traced to a specific line in a past note or briefing, including how to answer one built on an unresolved opinion-type row.
Follow-up Note
Sent within two or three days with exactly what was promised attached, following the point-of-view register an executive's thought leadership already sources and dates.
Briefing History
Every session logged with the topic covered and the days elapsed before a follow-up went out, so a slow pattern is visible before an analyst names it first.
How to use it
- 1
Send the analysts and whatever they've published
Hand over the firms that actually cover your category and whatever recent notes exist, even just one or two per analyst.
- 2
Each analyst's real pattern gets read
River reads four to six past notes per analyst for what they keep returning to, and logs it on the register as their coverage pattern.
- 3
Every published error gets tagged and routed
A factual claim gets a correction request with a dated source. An opinion-shaped one gets routed to the next briefing as new evidence instead.
- 4
The next briefing opens with what they actually asked
The deck's first slides answer whatever question that analyst's last note raised, before anything else gets presented.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes, with no signup and no card, and the download is the complete pack rather than a preview of it. Edit with AI installs it as a private workspace and reads whatever your own analysts have actually published instead of this worked example. More packs sit in the template library.
What format are the downloaded files?
Three Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip. The documents open in Word, Pages, and Google Docs, and the sheets open as real spreadsheets in Excel, Numbers, or Google Sheets, so the register and the log are usable data rather than a table flattened onto a page.
How is this different from a normal analyst briefing template?
The usual template gives a generic deck outline and a note to research the analyst first. This one reads four to six of their actual notes before drafting anything, and splits every published error by type. On the worked example, that split predicted which of nine corrections would land with 100% accuracy.
How do I know if an inaccuracy is factual or opinion-shaped?
Tag it by what it would take to resolve. A number, a date, a shipped feature are checkable against a record and get a correction request. A ranking, a tier, a judgment about direction have no record to check against, so they get routed to the next briefing as evidence instead, never a request.
Doesn't leaving an opinion-type error uncorrected just make things worse?
Usually, yes, which is exactly what this pack's own log shows: three opinion-type requests, sent the same way as six factual ones, and zero landed. That is why the routing rule exists. The point-of-view register behind an executive's thought leadership is one real source for the evidence that goes into the next briefing instead.
What does Edit with AI actually do?
It installs this pack as a private workspace and asks which analysts or firms actually cover your category. It reads whatever notes are public, drafts a register entry and a first briefing narrative from what each one actually returns to, and flags every open inaccuracy by type before anything gets sent.
Find out what your own analysts actually keep returning to
Send the firms that cover your category and whatever they've published. River reads the pattern, drafts the next briefing to it, and routes every inaccuracy by type.
Edit with AI