Turn a completed research writeup into a publishable article outline without losing the caveats that made it honest

Take the research writeup below and produce an outline for turning it into a publishable article for Our company blog, roughly 900-1200 words, casual-professional tone. — not the full article yet, an outline I can review before drafting starts.

SOURCE RESEARCH WRITEUP
Full 12-page internal report on why churned customers cite 'too complex' twice as often in exit interviews as in the exit survey, with a discussion of interviewer framing effects and small sample caveats.

TARGET AUDIENCE
Product managers at other companies who read our blog for practical churn-reduction ideas, not academics.

PUBLICATION CONTEXT
Our company blog, roughly 900-1200 words, casual-professional tone.

MUST-KEEP CAVEATS
The exit-interview sample was only 14 customers, and interviewers knew the study's hypothesis in advance, which could have shaped the questions asked.

Build the outline around the single strongest, most concrete finding as the hook — not the broadest claim the research could theoretically support, and not the methodology. A wider audience reads for what changed or what surprised, not for how thorough the process was; lead the outline with whichever finding would make someone actually stop scrolling, and say explicitly why you picked that one over the others in the source material.

For every caveat listed in The exit-interview sample was only 14 customers, and interviewers knew the study's hypothesis in advance, which could have shaped the questions asked., mark exactly where in the outline it needs to survive into the article — do not let a caveat get implicitly dropped just because it complicates the narrative; if a caveat genuinely can't fit without undermining the hook, flag that tension directly rather than quietly outlining around it.

Write each outline section as what it needs to accomplish for the reader, not just a section title — "establishes why this matters to someone who's never thought about it" is more useful at outline stage than a title like "Background."

Flag any claim in the source writeup that was appropriately hedged for a research context but would read as an unqualified fact if simplified for Product managers at other companies who read our blog for practical churn-reduction ideas, not academics. without its original caveat — this is the most common way a faithful research writeup turns into a misleading popular article, and it needs to be caught at outline stage, before drafting, not fixed after the fact.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. The chosen hook and one line on why it beats the alternatives.
2. Section-by-section outline, each with its job, not just a title.
3. A caveat placement map — which section carries which must-keep caveat.
4. A flagged list of claims that need explicit hedging preserved when simplified.