# OPC Case Research Standard

## Contents

1. Goal
2. Core questions
3. Information boundary
4. Evidence grading
5. Deliverables
6. Workflow
7. Report dimensions
8. Quality bar
9. Uncertainty disclosure

## 1. Goal

Use this standard to produce case research that is reusable, comparable, and traceable.

The research should help with:

- deep reports
- column or episode preparation
- strategy decomposition
- method extraction
- cross-case comparison later

This is not a biography template. Treat it as a research product standard.

## 2. Core Questions

Every solid case study should answer these questions.

### 2.1 Who is this case?

- What is the core identity
- How do others recognize the case
- How does the person or brand describe itself

### 2.2 Why is this case worth studying?

- What is representative about the path, niche, model, or style
- What can the target reader learn from it
- What parts are high-barrier or hard to copy

### 2.3 How did the case reach its current state?

- What background and experiences built today's capability stack
- What turning points changed the path

### 2.4 How does the case form a business loop?

- What direct and indirect revenue streams are visible
- Which parts look like stable cash flow
- Which parts look like brand leverage rather than immediate cash
- Which parts are personal-labor heavy and which parts could scale

### 2.5 What method is visible underneath?

- positioning method
- content strategy
- channel strategy
- operating habits
- commercialization path
- decision logic and boundaries

## 3. Information Boundary

### 3.1 Allowed Sources

Use public information only, including:

- public social accounts
- public interviews, talks, and conversations
- official websites, profiles, event pages, signup pages
- industry databases and program pages
- media reports with source awareness

### 3.2 Forbidden Moves

Do not:

- dig for private information
- cross privacy boundaries
- write unverified claims as facts
- invent revenue, team, partnership, or operational details
- replace business analysis with gossip

### 3.3 Verification Rules

- Prefer original sources over summaries
- Cross-check important facts when possible
- Use different source types to triangulate one claim
- Stay skeptical of promo copy, headlines, and self-branding language
- Make uncertainty explicit

## 4. Evidence Grading

### 4.1 Source Levels

Use this priority order:

- A: first-party statements, official pages, original program pages, original event pages
- B: mainstream media, platform profile pages, industry databases, partner official pages
- C: reposts, summaries, forums, Q and A pages, comments, only for clues

Rule:

- C-level sources can help discover leads
- C-level sources cannot stand alone for important conclusions

### 4.2 Information Status

Mark important information as one of:

- Fact: clearly supported by public sources
- Inference: reasonable conclusion based on public evidence, with stated logic
- Unknown: not enough evidence to conclude

### 4.3 Handling Conflicts

If sources conflict:

1. List the conflict clearly
2. Record source type and time for each side
3. Prefer the more original, higher-level, newer source
4. If still unresolved, mark as pending verification

## 5. Deliverables

### 5.1 Case Brief

Use the brief to judge whether a case deserves deeper work.

At minimum include:

- core identity tags
- one-line positioning
- representative work or programs
- channel matrix summary
- business model overview
- key timeline nodes
- 3-5 reasons the case is worth studying
- risks, controversies, or open questions if relevant

### 5.2 Structured Report

Target length can vary. What matters is dimension coverage and traceability.

### 5.3 Minimum Evidence Slice

Even a standard report should include a compact evidence slice rather than hiding all support inside prose.

Recommended minimum:

- 6-12 evidence rows or bullet-equivalents
- coverage across identity, timeline, content, channel, and business model
- direct links or clearly named source anchors
- date or time range whenever the claim is time-sensitive

If the user did not ask for a table, this can appear as an "evidence snapshot" appendix.

### 5.4 Evidence Library

Provide structured evidence when doing deeper work.

Suggested fields:

- information id
- information point
- status
- source link
- source level
- source type
- publish date or capture date
- note or summary
- cross-verified or not
- related dimension
- remarks

### 5.5 Visual Appendices

When useful, include at least two of:

- key timeline
- content-channel-conversion path
- business model structure
- product matrix

## 6. Workflow

### Step 1: Build the Basic Profile

Goal:

- confirm who the target is
- identify what they do
- identify where they are active

Collect:

- person, brand, or common nickname
- one-line role description
- main platform links
- official homepages
- niche or industry
- visible monetization entry points

Output:

- initial profile card
- first link pool

### Step 2: Build the Source Map

Goal:

- avoid getting trapped by fragments
- organize source priority before heavy reading

Output:

- A, B, and C source lists
- suggested reading order

### Step 3: Build the Timeline Skeleton

Goal:

- establish time order before interpretation

Cover as many as are publicly visible:

- education or early formation
- early career
- major role stages
- entrepreneurship or transition points
- IP formation
- commercialization upgrades
- current direction

Each node should include:

- time
- event
- source
- why it matters

### Step 4: Analyze Content and IP

Clarify:

- core proposition
- long-term themes
- themes avoided or deprioritized
- format mix
- recurring columns or series
- content style
- role identity
- differentiation signals
- main channels and distribution channels
- cross-platform adaptation
- visible traffic or conversion paths

### Step 5: Analyze Business Model

Use a structure such as:

- direct content revenue
- service revenue
- product revenue
- event revenue
- brand partnership revenue
- indirect long-term assets

Then answer:

- main revenue source
- secondary revenue source
- recurring vs one-off
- cash flow vs brand leverage
- single-platform or single-product concentration risks
- personal dependency vs scalability

If business evidence is thin:

- downgrade claims to "possible structure" or "visible clues"
- move unsupported items into open questions
- avoid pretending to know the actual revenue mix

### Step 6: Review Key Decisions

For each key node, try to explain:

1. the external context
2. the choice set
3. the visible decision
4. likely decision logic
5. short-term and long-term outcomes
6. impact on today's brand or business structure

Focus on:

- role changes
- format changes
- platform migration
- business model shifts
- topic expansion or narrowing
- team or brand structure changes if public

### Step 7: Extract Replicability

Always separate:

- clearly replicable moves
- partially replicable moves that require accumulation
- high-barrier or non-replicable factors

Avoid empty slogans. Explain why each item falls into that bucket.

### Step 8: Apply the Insufficient-Information Fallback

When the public record is too thin for a full structured report, do not force completeness.

Fallback output should prioritize:

- confirmed facts
- best-effort inferences with logic stated
- unknowns and pending verification
- next-search suggestions if the case still matters

This fallback is still a valid research output.

## 7. Report Dimensions

Make sure the report covers these dimensions unless the user explicitly asks for a smaller output.

### 7.1 Basic Background

- name or brand
- 3-5 identity labels
- public education background if available
- public city or long-term operating location if available
- current work form: solo, small team, company, network
- self-description keywords

### 7.2 Career Path

- entry path into the field
- important organizations or roles
- ability accumulation
- migration from professional role to IP or business owner

### 7.3 IP Positioning and Content System

- core proposition
- topic map
- signature series
- format mix
- user value
- audience profile if inferable
- boundaries and stability

### 7.4 Brand and Productization

- brand, studio, or label if public
- product ladder if visible
- community or membership structure if visible
- event system if visible
- terminology or language assets if visible
- extension potential across themes, platforms, or products

### 7.5 Business Model

- revenue source list
- main and secondary revenue
- stability
- concentration risk
- scale potential

### 7.6 Representative Output

- representative content
- representative commercial projects if public
- representative activities if public
- representative partners if public
- visible metrics and their dates

### 7.7 Key Events

- entry point
- breakout point
- transition point
- low point or controversy if public and business-relevant
- new business launch
- platform migration
- brand upgrade
- important collaboration

### 7.8 Lifestyle and Operating Style

Stay professional, not voyeuristic.

Focus on:

- how city and work scene affect content and activities
- time management or creation rhythm if public
- how roles coexist if public
- how lifestyle aligns with the brand style

### 7.9 Values and Thinking Models

- repeated keywords or principles
- stable views on technology, business, content, relationships, or life
- how those views affect topics, boundaries, and partnerships

## 8. Quality Bar

### 8.1 Minimum Bar

- cover the core dimensions
- provide a usable timeline
- keep evidence traceable
- include at least a minimum evidence slice in standard or deep outputs
- separate facts, inferences, and unknowns
- analyze business structure instead of using slogans
- let conclusions point back to sources

### 8.2 Strong Case Study

- identify real turning points and why they matter
- connect content strategy to monetization
- separate visible persona from operating logic
- produce specific lessons instead of admiration
- identify risks, limits, and barriers
- keep time context explicit

### 8.3 Self-Check

- Did this turn into a biography instead of a research report
- Did the conclusion rely on one platform only
- Did any inference get presented as fact
- Did I use praise words without evidence
- Did I ignore dates and time windows
- Did I skip revenue structure or conversion analysis
- Did I skip replicability
- Did I force a complete business story when the public evidence was too weak

## 9. Uncertainty Disclosure

Use explicit disclosure for:

- revenue estimates
- audience profile assumptions
- team size assumptions
- conversion or retention assumptions
- event attendance assumptions
- pricing or ticket range assumptions

Suggested format:

- conclusion type
- estimated object
- time range
- method
- key variables and ranges
- source basis
- uncovered factors
- risk note