Research Process
Timeline-first investigation that reveals stories through systematic inquiry
Timeline-first investigation for founder narrative discovery
The Problem with Story-First Research
After researching Vineeta Singh of SUGAR Cosmetics, a writer decides the story angle before reviewing the full timeline: “From elite MBA to beauty unicorn—how credentials opened doors.”
This predetermined narrative creates a problem: the timeline reveals 4,500 investor rejections and a failed first business model. The “credentials opened doors” angle is factually wrong. But the writer already committed to that story, so the rejections get minimized, the failure gets buried, and the narrative serves the initial assumption rather than the actual journey.
This is confirmation bias in action.
Traditional content creation follows this flawed sequence:
- Identify a founder to feature
- Decide what story to tell about them
- Research facts that support that story
- Write the article
When you decide the story first, research becomes an exercise in finding supporting evidence. Contradicting information gets minimized. Missing phases get glossed over.
The result is content that feels thin—because it is. The story wasn’t discovered. It was imposed.
Timeline-First: A Different Approach
Brandmine reverses the sequence:
The story isn’t decided before research. The story is discovered through research.
Key Insight: Timeline-first research prevents the single biggest failure mode in founder content: imposing narratives on data instead of discovering stories within it. The timeline reveals whether a genuine transformation arc exists—before you invest writing effort.
How Timeline-First Works
Step 1: Event Collection
For every founder or brand, we gather events across their full history:
Background
Education, prior career, family context
Founding
When, why, initial positioning
Setbacks
Rejections, failures, obstacles
Pivots
Strategic changes, model shifts
Recognition
Awards, press, external validation
Growth
Revenue milestones, expansion, scaling
Crises
Existential threats, near-failures
We aim for 10-20 events per timeline—enough to reveal transformation, not so many that noise obscures signal.
Step 2: Chronological Mapping
Events are arranged by date, creating a visual timeline of the founder’s journey:
The visual map reveals patterns that narrative summary obscures:
- How long was the struggle phase? (Four years of setbacks before breakthrough)
- Where is the crisis? (2010, partner exit + self-doubt)
- Is triumph earned? (Yes—after extended difficulty)
Step 3: Phase Classification
Each event receives a phase assignment based on its narrative function:
"Engineering degree" → Setup
Establishes credentials and foundational experience
"Market gap recognition" → Catalyst
Inciting insight that sparks the journey
"First product fails" → Struggle
Obstacle and setback, but not existential
"Partner exits" → Crisis
Existential threat combined with internal doubt
"Pivots to new model" → Breakthrough
Transformation moment that changes trajectory
"First profitable year" → Triumph
Validation and proof of concept
This classification reveals the story arc. Gaps become visible: Is there a catalyst? Is there a crisis? Is there a breakthrough?
Step 4: Story Inventory
From one timeline, multiple stories may emerge:
“From corporate disillusion to industry disruption”
Category: Founder’s Journey
Clear transformation arc with extended struggle phase and dramatic pivot
“Why the first product failed and what it taught”
Category: Brand Spotlight
Lesson is there but less dramatic than full journey
“The partner exit: when conviction costs relationships”
Category: Founder’s Journey
Crisis is personal and specific—emotionally resonant
“Patient capital: 6 years to profitability”
Category: Market Momentum
Data story, less emotional but valuable sector insight
Timeline-first research doesn’t produce one story. It produces a story inventory—multiple narrative possibilities ranked by strength.
Step 5: Evidence-Based Selection
With multiple story options identified, we score each across five dimensions:
Narrative Strength
Complete arc? Clear crisis? Earned resolution?
Uniqueness
Never told? Contrarian insight? Genuinely surprising?
Research Completeness
All facts verified? Ready to write?
Universal Lesson
Obvious takeaway for similar founders?
Strategic Fit
Aligns with Brandmine focus?
The highest-scoring story gets written. Others enter our content pipeline for future production.
What Timeline-First Prevents
Confirmation Bias
When you build the timeline first, the data leads. You cannot ignore a four-year struggle phase because it doesn’t fit your angle. You cannot manufacture crisis where none exists.
The timeline is evidence. It protects against the writer’s assumptions.
Wasted Writing Effort
Before investing 4-6 hours writing a featured article, timeline-first research reveals whether the story arc supports that investment. Incomplete timelines signal incomplete research—or stories not worth telling.
Quality check happens before writing, not after.
Single-Story Waste
Traditional approaches: 8 hours research → 1 article. Timeline-first approach: 8 hours research → 8-12 story possibilities → 3-6 articles.
The same research investment yields multiple content options. Pipeline efficiency compounds.
Surface-Level Stories
Crisis moments don’t appear in press releases. The “Am I delusional?” moments don’t make LinkedIn posts. Timeline-first research, with sufficient depth, surfaces the vulnerable moments that make stories compelling.
Depth reveals what promotional content hides.
Research Quality Indicators
We evaluate research completeness through specific signals:
Strong Timeline Indicators
- 10-20 events mapped chronologically
- All 6 phases represented (or clear reason for absence)
- Crisis documented with specific detail (not generic “faced challenges”)
- Breakthrough mechanism explained (not just “things improved”)
- Multiple sources verify key events
Signal: Ready to write with confidence
Weak Timeline Indicators
- Fewer than 8 events (insufficient depth)
- Missing phases without explanation
- Vague crisis (“difficult period” without specifics)
- Unexplained breakthrough (sudden success without mechanism)
- Single-source dependency
Signal: Research more, or reconsider featured coverage
The Crisis Priority
Crisis documentation is central to our methodology.
Every founder has a moment when quitting seemed rational. When the evidence pointed toward failure. When conviction felt like delusion.
Crisis Moments Rarely Appear In
- Company websites (image management)
- Press coverage (success narrative bias)
- Investor pitch decks (confidence projection)
- LinkedIn profiles (professional presentation)
Why: Promotional content avoids vulnerability
Crisis Moments Appear In
- Long-form interviews with reflective founders
- Russian-language regional business press
- Industry publications with insider access
- Direct founder conversations when trust exists
Why: Depth and trust surface genuine struggle
Timeline-first research prioritizes finding these moments. A timeline without genuine crisis is a timeline without story. The vulnerable moments are what make transformation arcs compelling—and what separate real founder journeys from promotional narratives.
Source Hierarchy
Not all sources provide equal narrative value:
Gold Tier: Founder Interviews
Provides: Crisis moments, internal reasoning, emotional truth
Limitation: May be self-serving
Silver Tier: Industry Publications
Provides: Sector context, competitive positioning
Limitation: Surface coverage
Bronze Tier: Regional Business Press
Provides: Local detail, cultural context
Limitation: Limited distribution
Supporting: Financial Records
Provides: Verification, timeline accuracy
Limitation: No narrative
Background: Company Materials
Provides: Official positioning, key dates
Limitation: Promotional bias
We triangulate across sources: founder claims verified by records, industry context enriched by regional press, financial data grounded by human narrative.
Cultural Intelligence Layer
Brandmine operates across three languages and multiple cultural contexts. Timeline-first research must account for:
Language-Specific Sources
- Russian business registries (SPARK-Interfax, Kontur.Focus) reveal founding dates, ownership changes, financial trajectory
- Chinese industry publications provide market context unavailable in English
- Regional media captures local significance that international outlets miss
Cultural Context Integration
A crisis that seems minor in Western framing may be profound in cultural context. A triumph that appears modest globally may represent unprecedented achievement regionally.
Timeline-first research doesn’t just map events—it interprets their weight within cultural frameworks.
Research Investment by Tier
Not all brands require the same research depth:
Listed
Research Time: 5-10 minutes
Timeline Depth: Verification only
Story Inventory: N/A
Basic validation for directory inclusion
Profiled
Research Time: 2-3 hours
Timeline Depth: 10-15 events
Story Inventory: 4-6 possibilities
Solid foundation for brand resilience profile
Featured
Research Time: 4-7 hours
Timeline Depth: 15-20 events
Story Inventory: 8-12 possibilities
Deep investigation for transformation arc documentation
Research investment scales with content ambition. Featured coverage requires timeline depth that reveals genuine transformation. Listed brands need only verification.
What We Don’t Publish
Timeline-first research surfaces stories—but not all stories should be told.
No Genuine Crisis
Success was too easy to create narrative tension—no existential moment
Manufactured Struggle
Obstacles that weren't actually obstacles—artificial difficulty for story
Missing Breakthrough
Crisis without transformation—difficulty without learning or change
Unearned Triumph
Achievement without clear cause—success that appears coincidental
A timeline that doesn’t support a compelling story is not a failure. It’s valuable intelligence about where not to invest writing effort.
The Research Process methodology was developed by Brandmine for systematic founder investigation. First published December 2025.