Research Report Components and Evidence-Based Writing

A research report is only as strong as the evidence chain behind it. Series 87 expects the analyst to connect the company overview, business model, industry context, financial position, management quality, outlook, thesis, valuation, and risk discussion into one supportable argument.

The exam does not reward promotional writing. It rewards balanced, sourced, internally consistent research that distinguishes facts from assumptions and gives readers enough context to understand why the recommendation could be wrong.

Learning objectives

After this lesson, you should be able to:

• explain how research report components and evidence-based writing fit the Series 87 research-control workflow
• identify the disclosures, restrictions, approvals, or records that change the answer
• recognize when research content, timing, channel, or audience creates a conflict or market-integrity risk
• choose the response that keeps research accurate, independent, approved, and retained

What the exam is really testing

Series 87 questions usually test whether research stays inside a controlled pipeline. The fact pattern may involve a report, draft, chart, client call, social post, issuer interaction, or offering context, but the stronger answer asks whether the content is supportable, disclosed, supervised, and distributed fairly. For research report components and evidence-based writing, that means protecting readers from unsupported certainty, hidden conflicts, selective access, and missing records.

Control workflow

    flowchart TD
	  A["Research draft"] --> B["Build evidence for business model, financials, industry, and management"]
	  B --> C["Connect evidence to thesis, catalysts, valuation, and risks"]
	  C --> D["Separate facts from assumptions and cite key sources"]
	  D --> E["Check consistency, balance, readability, and disclosure support"]

How to answer fact patterns

1. Classify the communication: report, draft, update, public appearance, internal summary, or dissemination channel.
2. Identify the conflict, disclosure, approval, certification, timing, or recordkeeping issue.
3. Ask whether the proposed action gives any audience unfair, unsupported, or unapproved research access.
4. Choose the answer that discloses, restricts, escalates, approves, and retains the record before dissemination.

Common exam traps

• Writing a bullish thesis without identifying what could prove it wrong.
• Using valuation output without explaining key assumptions.
• Mixing facts, assumptions, and management claims without labels.
• Omitting recent adverse news because it complicates the recommendation.
• Using technical language that hides unsupported analysis.

Key concepts

• Business model: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.
• Competitive position: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.
• Quality of earnings: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.
• Investment thesis: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.
• Valuation support: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.
• Key risks: know what it changes in disclosure, approval, independence, timing, or dissemination control.

Key takeaways

• Series 87 rewards research integrity, not faster distribution.
• A short message, chart, call, or public comment can still need the same disclosure and supervision discipline as a formal report.
• The safest answer usually protects independence, avoids selective dissemination, and preserves a clear approval and retention record.