Skip to content

SOP-045 — Intel monitoring

Guide

<!-- last-reviewed: 2026-06-01 · owner: Innovation (Competitive Intelligence Analyst) -->

SOP-045 — Intel monitoring

SOP · owner: Innovation (Competitive Intelligence Analyst). Layer: SOP/Runbook (docs/canon.md). The intel-brief shape and the sourcing-vs-synthesis split live in docs/units/innovation/charter.md — linked, not restated.

GR-4 need-analysis (why this △ SOP exists): the artifact-matrix marks the CIA’s SOP △ (required if the role runs a recurring procedure). The JD names a monitoring cadence — “periodic sweeps of key competitors and market signals; proactive delivery of material changes” — which is a recurring procedure, so the △ resolves to required: a competitor sweep and a commissioned brief recur and benefit from a fixed, executable procedure. This SOP documents that recurring work; the one-off, deep-dive variant reuses the same steps.

Interface Contract

  • Inputs: intelligence commission ← from Innovation Director · trigger: intelligence commissioned
  • Outputs: intel brief → to Innovation Director · trigger: intel brief delivered
  • Outputs: competitor/trend snapshot (research entry) → to Documentarian · trigger: document changed
  • Outputs: intel brief + snapshot → to Archivist · trigger: artifact approved
  • Handoff trigger (in): the Innovation Director commissions a scoped intelligence question, or the monitoring cadence fires a periodic sweep
  • Handoff trigger (out): a sourced, dated, confidence-labelled brief is delivered to the Innovation Director
  • Definition of Done before handoff:
    • [ ] Scope confirmed with the Director (decision served · named competitors/domains · time horizon)
    • [ ] Primary signals gathered first; secondary context labelled and dated
    • [ ] Every claim carries a source and a date; undated/unsourced claims flagged unverified
    • [ ] Confidence labelled (confirmed / inferred / speculation)
    • [ ] Marketing-vs-shipped contradictions noted explicitly
    • [ ] “So what for the pipeline” extracted (the signal handed to the Director)
    • [ ] No venture concept invented (sourcing only — synthesis is the Director’s lane)
    • [ ] Research entry filed to docs/knowledge/research/; learnings captured
    • [ ] Brief + snapshot handed to the Archivist (0 drift)

Registered triggers — intelligence commissioned (Innovation Director → CIA) and intel brief delivered (CIA → Innovation Director) are now in docs/handoff-triggers.md (Wave-2 block, Operations-approved 2026-06-01). document changed and artifact approved already existed (the research-entry filing reuses document changed, the registry’s folded synonym for “an entry filed for indexing”). The Innovation↔CIA edges are declared verbatim on both SOP-044 and SOP-045; because neither role is a distinct Interface-Contract identity in the reconciler, they reconcile as pending (counterparty not yet authored) per §3.1.1 R3 — clean for this wave.

Purpose

Give Innovation a clear-eyed, sourced, dated view of the external landscape — competitor profiles, market maps, trend signals — so the Director’s hypotheses are grounded in market reality, not assumption. Deliver a tight brief with an explicit “so what for the pipeline”, and keep a periodic sweep running so material changes surface proactively.

When to use

When the Innovation Director commissions a scoped intelligence question (a specific decision or hypothesis to serve), or on the recurring monitoring sweep of key competitors and market signals. Also when a material external change is spotted between scheduled sweeps and warrants a proactive brief.

Flow

flowchart LR
  A["Commission /<br/>cadence fires"] --> B["Confirm scope<br/>with Director"]
  B --> C["Primary signals first<br/>(changelogs, pricing, forums)"]
  C --> D["Secondary context<br/>(labelled, dated)"]
  D --> E["Cross-check:<br/>claims vs. shipped"]
  E --> F["Place on the<br/>market map"]
  F --> G["Extract 'so what<br/>for the pipeline'"]
  G --> H["Brief → Director;<br/>snapshot → research lib"]
  classDef s fill:#1d4ed8,color:#fff,stroke:#1e3a8a
  class A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H s

Text fallback: a commission arrives or the cadence fires → confirm scope with the Director → gather primary signals first (product changelogs, pricing pages, job boards, repos, patents, regulatory filings, real user forums) → supplement with secondary context, labelled and dated → cross-check marketing claims against what actually ships → place findings on the market map → extract the “so what for the pipeline” → deliver the brief to the Director and file the snapshot to docs/knowledge/research/.

Steps

  1. Confirm scope with the Innovation Director — what decision/hypothesis does this serve, which named competitors or domains, what time horizon. Do not spend research cycles on an unscoped question.
  2. Gather primary signals first — changelogs, pricing pages, job boards, GitHub repos, patent/regulatory filings, real user forums (Reddit, G2, Trustpilot, app reviews). These outrank analyst reports and press releases.
  3. Supplement with secondary context — industry reports, trade press, analyst commentary — clearly labelled secondary, with publication date and potential bias.
  4. Cross-check for consistency — where a competitor’s marketing diverges from what ships or what users report, note the gap explicitly. Contradictions are intelligence.
  5. Map to the landscape — place each finding on the market map: segment, position relative to others, apparent strategic bet.
  6. Synthesize, don’t dump — extract the “so what for the pipeline”: what assumption does this confirm, challenge, or invalidate; what signal warrants watching. Do not invent a venture concept — that is the Director’s lane.
  7. Write the brief to the shape: one-sentence key finding · sourced+dated evidence · market-map implication · “so what for the pipeline” · confidence label. Keep it tight.
  8. File and hand off — file the competitor/trend snapshot to docs/knowledge/research/ (document changed to the Documentarian for indexing), deliver the brief to the Director (intel brief delivered), and hand both to the Archivist (artifact approved).

Roles / approvers

Run by the Competitive Intelligence Analyst. The Innovation Director commissions the question, reviews the brief, and is accountable for how the intelligence is used — the Director synthesizes it into strategic options (SOP-044); the CIA does not. The Documentarian indexes the filed research entry; the Archivist preserves.

Guardrails

  • Cite source and date — every claim carries both; undated/unsourced claims are flagged unverified. A press release is a data point; a changelog is evidence.
  • Label confidence — distinguish confirmed facts from inferred patterns from speculation; never let a plausible story pass as evidence.
  • Stay in lane — do not generate venture concepts (Innovation Director), make product decisions (CPTO/Engineering), model unit economics (Finance), or research KLMS’s own product / Kevin’s usage (Design Research). Your subjects are external.
  • Respect third-party ToS — cite sources; flag any fetch/scrape that may breach a source’s terms to Legal & Compliance before proceeding.
  • Never touch the Principal’s personal information — PA-only.
  • Do not restate the intel-brief shape or the sourcing/synthesis split — link to the charter.

Job aid: JA-045-source-date-confidence.md. See also: SOP-044 (Ideate→Plan handoff) · docs/units/innovation/charter.md · docs/handoff-triggers.md.