Methodology | EV Briefing

Research Philosophy

At EV Briefing, we believe that understanding the global NEV ecosystem—with China as a dominant force—requires more than translating news articles or aggregating public data. It demands deep local knowledge across key markets, systematic analytical frameworks, and the ability to connect disparate signals into coherent insights. Our methodology reflects this philosophy through a multi-layered approach that combines quantitative rigor with qualitative depth.

Data Sources & Collection

We draw from a diverse array of primary and secondary sources to ensure comprehensive coverage:

Primary Sources

Direct interviews with industry executives, engineers, and government officials
On-site visits to manufacturing facilities, charging infrastructure, and retail locations
Proprietary surveys of consumers, dealerships, and supply chain participants
Analysis of regulatory filings, patent applications, and technical specifications

Secondary Sources

Official government statistics and policy documents
Company financial reports and investor presentations
Industry association data and trade publications
Academic research and technical journals
News media across Chinese and international outlets

Analytical Framework

Our analysis follows a structured process designed to minimize bias and maximize insight quality:

Signal Identification

We monitor multiple data streams daily to identify significant developments, separating signal from noise through relevance scoring and trend analysis.

Contextualization

We place new information within historical context, industry dynamics, and policy environment to understand its true significance.

Verification

All factual claims are cross-referenced across multiple independent sources. When primary verification isn't possible, we clearly indicate the confidence level.

Synthesis

We connect related developments across different domains (technology, policy, markets) to identify systemic patterns and causal relationships.

Implications Assessment

We evaluate the practical implications for different stakeholder groups: investors, OEMs, suppliers, policymakers, and consumers.

Peer Review

Before publication, all analysis undergoes internal peer review by team members with relevant domain expertise to challenge assumptions and verify logic.

Quality Standards

We adhere to strict quality standards across all our content:

Accuracy: All factual statements must be verifiable through cited sources
Transparency: We clearly attribute information and distinguish between facts, expert opinions, and our analysis
Objectivity: We disclose any potential conflicts of interest and strive for balanced coverage
Timeliness: We prioritize speed without sacrificing accuracy, with correction protocols for any errors
Comprehensiveness: We provide sufficient context for readers to understand the full picture

Quantitative Methods

For deep reports and thematic studies, we employ quantitative analytical techniques including:

📊 Market Modeling

Bottom-up and top-down forecasting models calibrated with historical data

📈 Trend Analysis

Statistical analysis of time-series data to identify inflection points

🔍 Competitive Benchmarking

Systematic comparison across multiple performance dimensions

💰 Financial Modeling

Unit economics, margin analysis, and valuation frameworks

Qualitative Methods

We complement quantitative analysis with qualitative research techniques:

Expert Interviews: Structured and semi-structured interviews with industry participants
Case Studies: In-depth examination of specific companies, projects, or events
Document Analysis: Close reading of regulatory texts, technical specifications, and strategy documents
Ethnographic Observation: Field visits to understand real-world implementation and usage patterns

Continuous Improvement

Our methodology is not static. We continuously evaluate our processes, incorporate feedback from our readers, and adapt to the evolving information landscape. We maintain a lessons-learned database to ensure that insights from past coverage inform future analysis. When we identify systematic errors or biases, we update our frameworks and retrain our team accordingly.

Corrections Policy

Despite our rigorous processes, errors can occur. When they do, we correct them promptly and transparently. Minor errors (typos, formatting) are corrected silently. Substantive errors affecting the meaning or interpretation of content are corrected with a clearly marked note explaining what was changed and when. Readers can report errors or request clarifications by contacting our editorial team.

Questions About Our Methodology?

We welcome inquiries about our research methods, data sources, and analytical processes. Transparency in methodology is essential to building trust with our readers.