Synthesized six expert interviews on sales comp into agreement, dissent and a counterintuitive simpler-plans insight

You are a knowledge management specialist who synthesizes expert interviews into institutional intelligence. I've conducted expert interviews and need structured synthesis.\n\nRESEARCH TOPIC: {{research_topic}}\nNUMBER OF EXPERTS INTERVIEWED: {{n}}\nEXPERT PROFILES (roles, industries, years of experience):\n{{expert_profiles}}\n\nINTERVIEW RESPONSES (paste transcripts, notes, or summarized responses from each expert):\n{{interview_content}}\n\nOUTPUT — Expert Interview Synthesis Report:\n\n## 1. EXPERT PANEL PROFILE\n\n| Expert | Role | Industry | Experience | Domain Focus | Interview Length | Primary Perspective | Potential Bias |\n|--------|------|----------|------------|-------------|-----------------|--------------------|----------------|\n\nPanel diversity assessment:\n- Geographic coverage: [ ]\n- Functional diversity: [ ]\n- Industry diversity: [ ]\n- Seniority mix: [ ]\n- Known blind spots: [ ]\n\n## 2. AGREEMENT MATRIX\nWhere do experts agree?\n\n| Topic/Question | Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 | Expert 4 | Consensus Level | Confidence |\n|----------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------------|------------|\n\nConsensus levels:\n- **Strong consensus**: 80%+ agreement with aligned reasoning\n- **Moderate consensus**: 60-80% agreement\n- **Emerging consensus**: Trending toward agreement but not there yet\n- **Disagreement**: <60% agreement or conflicting views\n\nFor areas of STRONG CONSENSUS:\n- Synthesize the collective view\n- Note any dissenting perspectives (even outliers are valuable)\n- Confidence rating: [Very High — expert consensus is strong signal]\n\n## 3. DISSENT & TENSION MAP\nWhere do experts disagree? (This is often where the most interesting insights live)\n\n| Topic | Position A (Who holds it) | Position B (Who holds it) | Nature of Disagreement | Root of Disagreement | Resolution Path |\n|-------|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------|----------------|\n\nFor each disagreement:\n- Is it a factual disagreement (can be resolved with data)?\n- Is it an inferential disagreement (different interpretations of same facts)?\n- Is it a values disagreement (different priorities or risk tolerances)?\n- Is it an experiential disagreement (different contexts lead to different conclusions)?\n\n## 4. INSIGHT HIERARCHY\nOrganize findings by type and depth:\n\n**Level 1: Facts & Data** (Observable, verifiable)\n- [Insight]: Source expert(s) | Verifiable? [Yes/No/Partially]\n(5-10 items)\n\n**Level 2: Informed Judgments** (Expert interpretation based on evidence)\n- [Insight]: Source expert(s) | Confidence: [High/Med/Low] | Evidence base: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]\n(5-10 items)\n\n**Level 3: Predictions & Forecasts** (What experts believe will happen)\n- [Prediction]: Source | Time horizon | Confidence | Basis |\n(3-5 items)\n\n**Level 4: Wisdom & Principles** (Heuristics, mental models, lessons learned)\n- [Principle]: Source | Context where this applies | Caveats |\n(3-5 items)\n\n## 5. SURPRISING INSIGHTS\nFindings that contradicted my prior assumptions or conventional wisdom:\n| # | Surprising Insight | Source | Why It's Surprising | Implications | Credibility |\n|---|--------------------|--------|--------------------|-------------|-------------|\n\n## 6. EXPERT QUOTES BANK\nMost powerful quotes by theme (anonymized if needed):\n\n**On [Theme 1]**:\n- "..." — [Expert type/role]\n- "..." — [Expert type/role]\n\n**On [Theme 2]**:\n- "..." — [Expert type/role]\n\n## 7. TACIT KNOWLEDGE EXTRACTION\nWhat did experts KNOW but struggle to articulate?\n- Patterns they recognized intuitively\n- 'Rules of thumb' they use but haven't formalized\n- Things they do differently than written best practices (and why)\n- Warning signs they watch for that aren't in any textbook\n\n## 8. KNOWLEDGE GAPS IDENTIFIED BY EXPERTS\nWhat do the EXPERTS think we still don't know?\n\n| Gap | Identified By | Why It Matters | Research Needed | Urgency |\n|-----|--------------|----------------|-----------------|---------|\n\n## 9. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS\nSynthesize into prioritized actions:\n\n| Recommendation | Supporting Evidence | Confidence | Urgency | Effort | Priority | Risk of Delay |\n|---------------|--------------------|------------|---------|--------|----------|---------------|\n\n## 10. FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH PLAN\n- Questions that emerged from synthesis (new threads to pull)\n- Experts to interview next (who would complement current panel?)\n- Quantitative validation needed (which insights need statistical testing?)\n- Documents/data sources experts referenced that we should obtain