PwerMake

Information Synthesis

Our Information Synthesis service exists to take that burden off your shoulders.

This service specializes in transforming loosely gathered, unstructured, and often overwhelming collections of documents into a clear, coherent understanding of what's actually there. Whether you've inherited a client's chaotic archive, collected months of project materials with no time to organize them, or simply feel buried under the weight of "too much information", we step in to bring order, clarity, and direction.

Think of it as pouring your entire pile of uncollated data into a funnel, and receiving back only what matters, like the insights, themes, risks, requirements, and actionable conclusions that were hidden inside the mess.

Instead of spending hours or days sifting through documents, you get a comprehensive synthesis that reveals the story your information is trying to tell.

Service Description

Although we can provide you with a single requested result, there are several levels to the work we do to distill your information. Following are some of the more notable activities.

In each of the following efforts, we look at each of the base elements as being its own story. The results are very reliable in this approach, whether the information is a combination of communication, scripts and transcripts, narratives, factual documentation, or other form of documentation. The extraction of the final information is derived from the application of the activities to each of the stories we have at our disposal.

Structural Comparison

This area focuses on how each story is built, including any of the following key characteristics.

• Plot beats or key events.
• Narrative arc (setup > conflict > resolution).
• Pacing and emphasis.
• What each story chooses to foreground or omit.

This effort helps us to see whether the stories are telling the same thing in different shapes, or if their structures lead to different ends.

Thematic Comparison

This activity digs into the ideas behind the stories, and includes closer looks into the following traits.

• Core themes.
• Subthemes.
• Moral or philosophical stance.
• Emotional tone.

Two stories can describe the same events but push very different meanings. This comparison exposes the level of that component.

Character and Actor Comparison

If the stories involve people, groups, or entities, the following attributes are enumerated.

• Who appears in each version.
• How each actor is portrayed.
• Motivations, conflicts, relationships.
• Who is centered vs. marginalized.

The result of this test reveals bias, perspective, and narrative framing.

Factual and Content Comparison

This is what you might call the brass tacks layer. In this activity, we extrapolate the following properties.

• Points of agreement.
• Points of contradiction.
• Missing information.
• Differences in detail or specificity.

A simple table comparing facts and attributes of each story within a list of similar context points can be surprisingly powerful.

Perspective and Source Comparison

This is the activity in which synthesis often becomes possible. Here, we identify as many of the following markers as possible.

• Who is telling each story.
• What their incentives or blind spots might be.
• What context each storyteller assumes.
• What each story treats as normal, important, or irrelevant.

Multiple stories can often reconciled once we can understand specifically how they differ.

Linguistic and Framing Comparison

This activity takes a look at the language itself. The following traits can be found with this inspection.

• Word choice.
• Tone (neutral, dramatic, technical, emotional).
• Metaphors or recurring imagery.
• Loaded vs. neutral phrasing.

The resulting view of this activity helps us to see how rhetoric might shape the interpretation.

Causal Logic Comparison

This comparison seeks to illuminate the internal reasoning of each story.

• What each story claims is the cause of an identified result.
• Whether the causal chain is explicit or implied.
• Whether the logic is consistent, both internal to the individual story, and in comparison with similar chains in the other stories.

The result of this activity is essential for helping us to builder our unified explanation.

Example Scenario: Three Major Inputs, One Coherent Training Course

A client approaches you because they need a new training program for their field technicians. The product they support has gone through several major revisions, and the documentation they've provided is less than tidy, to say the least.

Legacy Training Manual (Version 4.0)

This is a 300‑page manual created years ago by a previous team, most of whom no longer work at the company.

• It contains deep technical explanations, diagrams, troubleshooting flows, and background context that never made it into later versions.
• Some procedures are outdated, but the foundational concepts are still essential for understanding how the system works under the hood.
• The writing style is inconsistent, and the structure is dense, but it's the only place where certain core principles are documented.

Modern Training Manual (Version 7.0)

This is the current official manual, which is polished but incomplete.

• It reflects the newest features, UI changes, updated workflows, and revised safety protocols.
• Several older features have been removed or replaced, but the manual doesn't ever explain why, it simply omits them.
• Entire sections assume prior knowledge that only exists in the older manual.
• Some newer features are documented only at a high level, with no detailed examples or troubleshooting guidance.

Marketing Product Brochure

This is a glossy, customer‑facing document, not meant for training, but surprisingly informative.

• It highlights capabilities, use cases, and value propositions that neither manual explains clearly.
• It includes diagrams and feature overviews that help clarify the product's evolution.
• It mentions several "coming soon" enhancements and integrations that the manuals don't address at all.
• It provides the clearest explanation of the product's positioning and intended audience.

The Problem Your Client Faces

Individually, each document is useful. However, together, they're contradictory, overlapping, incomplete, and confusing.

Your training team doesn't know any of the following.

• Which features still matter.
• Which legacy concepts are essential.
• What new workflows replace old ones.
• How to explain the product's evolution.
• What the trainees actually need to understand to be effective.

They can't build a coherent course without first understanding the story behind the product, and that story is scattered across three mismatched sources.

Where Information Synthesis Steps In

Our service takes these three large, disjointed inputs and produces a unified, structured understanding of the product.

• A table of subjects and details that still need to be squared with your customer.
• A consolidated feature map showing what has changed, what remains relevant, and what is known to have been depreciated.
• A merged conceptual model that explains the product's architecture across versions.
• A clear narrative of the product's evolution, drawn from all three sources.
• A training‑ready outline that identifies what learners must know, what's optional, and what's outdated.
• A distilled set of insights that the manuals alone don't reveal.

The result is clear information upon which you can build a reliable, top-quality training course.

Pricing Chart

Following is the master pricing chart for this service.

What You Get

Our deliverable result on the Information Synthesis service includes any or all of the following, whenever applicable.

• List of Unknowns. A list of specific details that could not be resolved during the exercise. This information can be brought back to your customer for their clarification.
• Structural Comparison Table. This is a comparison matrix where the first column identifies an element of the story, while the first row identifies each of the stories in the set.
• Thematic Comparison Table. A comparison matrix where the first column identifies an identifies theme, and where the first row identifies the stories in the set.
• Character and Actor Comparison. A list of character or primary object descriptions in the stories, followed by any consistent insights that could be gained about the actors.
• Factual and Content Comparison. A list of shared facts and elements, and a list of differences between the facts and elements of the stories.
• Perspective and Source Comparison. Brief tag-line overviews of each of the stories.
• Linguistic and Framing Comparison. A list of highlights identifying how elements of the stories have been framed or represented in different ways.
• Causal Logic Comparison. List of condensed logic chains for each of the stories.

This report is suitable for review with your customer in the process of revealing and solving important misunderstandings or weaknesses in the documentation, which can lead not only to a more successful completion of your own project, but to a better handle on the next generation of documentation at the customer's establishment.

In some, but not all, cases, we can use the above results in combination with the original stories to create a new master source of truth. Whenever that ultimate result is possible, we will also deliver that result to you.