3.1 Initial Primary Research¶

Status:	Draft roadmap; primary research not commenced
Source file:	`01 Scoping/06-primary-research-plan.md`; `02 Secondary Research/phase-2-gaps-and-risks.md`
Sensitivity review:	Completed
Purpose:	Initial Primary Research is a top-layer evidence check. Its purpose is to collect enough credible primary evidence to decide whether a larger funded research project is justified. This project should be narrow, disciplined and non-promotional. It should focus on the highest-risk Phase 2 gaps: buyer demand, processor access, product specifications, freight-adjusted returns, local gross margins, agronomic suitability, environmental comparison and GBLC strategic fit.

Targeted Phase 2 Gap Closure Setup¶

Initial Primary Research should begin with a short scoping and preparation step before any interviews, surveys or stakeholder approaches occur. This setup is part of 3.1. It should use the Phase 2 evidence base to make the primary research focused, efficient and non-promotional.

This is not a new broad desktop-research phase. It is a targeted conversion of the Phase 2 evidence gaps into interview scope, contact priorities, evidence-capture fields and decision gates.

Setup task	Detail	3.1 use
Extract Stanthorpe trial leads	Pull out the most relevant Stanthorpe trial findings for yield, water, sowing window, variety, crop-management and transferability questions.	Shape agronomist, researcher and producer questions about whether Stanthorpe evidence can inform the wider Granite Borders region.
Assemble comparator baselines	Prepare concise baseline notes for climate, land use, likely alternative enterprises and realistic environmental comparators across Tenterfield, Stanthorpe and nearby areas.	Keep producer economics and environmental interviews tied to "compared with what?" rather than generic hemp claims.
Map product pathways	Separate grain / seed food, oil / protein, fibre, hurd, dual-purpose, biomass and out-of-scope cannabinoid pathways.	Prevent interviews from treating hemp as one market and help decide which pathways deserve initial attention.
Map processor and buyer leads	Use public sources, Senate submissions, industry directories and existing source-register leads to identify possible processors, buyers, manufacturers, distributors or exporters.	Build the private contact list and prioritise contacts that can test real demand, specifications, intake terms and logistics.
Validate Senate inquiry leads	Separate Senate submission evidence into claims, lived experience, policy issues, possible contact leads and items needing corroboration.	Turn submission material into interview prompts without treating it as verified market, price or profitability evidence.
Identify regulatory and policy questions	Convert NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth licensing, testing, notification, record keeping, public-sector program and policy issues into practical interview prompts.	Guide regulator, adviser and political stakeholder interviews without turning them into advocacy.
Prioritise evidence gaps	Use Phase 2 Gaps and Risks to rank the unresolved questions that matter most for producer, supply-chain, GBLC and environmental decisions.	Keep the initial project narrow enough to complete in 4-6 weeks.
Prepare evidence-capture fields	Define fields for product pathway, geography, stakeholder category, assessment perspective, evidence type, confidence level and follow-up need.	Make interview outputs usable for synthesis, funding-readiness assessment and handoff to Scoping and Resourcing.

The setup should produce a short internal preparation pack before interviews begin.

Preparation output	Use
Interview-priority brief	Records the product pathways, evidence gaps and stakeholder groups to test first.
Contact category map	Identifies the stakeholder categories and lead sources for the private contact list.
Question matrix	Converts Phase 2 gaps into targeted questions by stakeholder group.
Evidence-capture template	Ensures findings are classified consistently by pathway, geography, perspective, confidence and follow-up need.
Go/no-go criteria	Defines what evidence would justify proceeding to Scoping and Resourcing, narrowing scope, pausing or taking no further action.

Handoff To Scoping And Resourcing¶

Initial Primary Research must feed directly into Scoping and Resourcing.

Its outputs should answer:

whether a larger project is worth designing;
which product pathways should be prioritised or ruled out;
which partners, funders or technical advisers should be approached;
what resources would be required;
what evidence gaps remain too weak for a funding application.

Research Streams¶

Stream	Participants	Main questions
Growers and non-adopters	Existing hemp growers, former growers, potential growers and producers who chose not to grow hemp.	What happened in practice? What costs, risks, yields, markets or barriers mattered?
Processors and buyers	Food processors, fibre/hurd processors, manufacturers, distributors and exporters.	Is there real demand, what specifications apply, what volumes are meaningful and could Granite Borders product be accepted?
Agronomists and researchers	Hemp researchers, agronomists and comparable-crop advisers.	What regional suitability, water, frost, soil, pest, weed and harvest issues need testing?
Regulators, advisers and political stakeholders	NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth regulatory or compliance advisers, elected representatives or policy staff where appropriate.	What practical licensing, testing, notification, record keeping, policy, program and timing issues affect producers or future project design?
GBLC, community and partners	GBLC leadership, members, possible New England Landcare Network partners and selected community stakeholders.	What role is appropriate, what concerns exist and what would be perceived as endorsement?

Indicative Sampling¶

The initial project should be large enough to test whether evidence exists, but small enough to complete quickly. Suggested targets are:

Stakeholder group	Target sample	Minimum useful sample	Notes
Existing or former hemp growers	4-6	3	Include successful, unsuccessful and discontinued experience where possible.
Non-adopters or comparable producers	4-6	3	Test reasons not to grow hemp and opportunity cost against current enterprises.
Processors and buyers	5-8	4	Cover seed food/oil, fibre/hurd/building materials and any product pathway with a plausible lead.
Agronomists and researchers	3-5	2	Include hemp-specific and comparable-crop expertise.
Regulators, advisers and political stakeholders	3-5	2	Use to clarify compliance, policy settings, program fit and public-sector constraints. Political interviews should be information-gathering only, not advocacy.
GBLC, community and partner stakeholders	6-10	4	Include GBLC leadership/member perspectives and possible partner appetite.

Total target sample: about 25-40 participants or informants. Minimum viable sample: about 18 participants or informants if coverage across all groups is achieved.

Basic Delivery Outline¶

Step	Activity	Output
1. Complete targeted Phase 2 setup	Extract Stanthorpe trial leads, comparator baselines, processor/buyer leads, Senate submission prompts and priority product-pathway questions.	Focused evidence-gap and interview-priority brief.
2. Confirm scope	Use Phase 2 Gaps and Risks plus the targeted setup brief to select priority product pathways, stakeholder groups and questions.	Short interview scope and contact categories.
3. Build contact list	Use public sources, industry leads, Landcare networks and partner suggestions.	Private contact list kept outside `docs/`.
4. Prepare instruments	Draft short call guide, consent script, evidence-capture template and classification fields.	Approved interview pack.
5. Conduct interviews	Use 15-30 minute semi-structured calls or meetings, with longer follow-up only where justified.	Private notes and source-coded evidence leads.
6. Classify evidence	Tag each finding by product pathway, geography, perspective, evidence type, confidence and follow-up need.	Primary evidence snapshot.
7. Synthesis workshop	Review findings with GBLC or project steering group without publishing sensitive details.	Go/no-go view for Scoping and Resourcing.
8. Prepare handoff	Convert findings into a funding-readiness brief, unresolved gap list and resourcing needs.	Inputs for 3.2 Scoping and Resourcing.

Outputs¶

Output	Purpose
Initial evidence snapshot	Summarise what primary evidence supports, weakens or leaves unresolved.
Supply-chain lead map	Identify possible processors, buyers and product pathways for later validation.
Unresolved gap list	Prioritise what a larger project would need to test.
Preliminary GBLC role test	Record whether monitor, inform, partner, convene, lead or no role remains plausible.
Resourcing needs	Identify time, skills, governance, privacy, technical and communications needs.
Funding-readiness brief	Decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed to Scoping and Resourcing.

Resourcing Options¶

Option	Role and tasks	Strengths	Risks	Suitability
Volunteer or internal coordination	GBLC or project volunteers coordinate calls, notes and synthesis using existing templates.	Low cost and locally grounded.	Limited time, uneven availability and possible lack of technical capacity.	Suitable only for a small screening project.
Paid project officer	A short-term officer coordinates interviews, evidence logging, scheduling and summaries.	Improves consistency, follow-up and delivery discipline.	Requires funding or internal budget and clear supervision.	Strong option if modest funds are available.
Consultant-supported delivery	Consultant supports interview design, synthesis, economics framing or funding-readiness outputs.	Adds speed, independence and specialist reporting capacity.	Cost and need for careful brief control.	Useful where GBLC needs a polished funder-ready evidence brief.
Research-partner delivery	University, government, TAFE or research partner helps design and interpret the initial project.	Adds credibility and technical discipline.	May require longer timelines, formal agreements or funding.	Best where the initial project is already linked to a larger research pathway.

Go Or No-Go Questions¶

Is there evidence of real buyer or processor interest that can be tested further?
Are there enough grower, non-adopter or technical contacts to support credible Phase 3 work?
Are the most plausible product pathways clear enough to scope?
Is GBLC's role still plausible after reputational and resource risks are considered?
Is there a credible funding or partner pathway for the next stage?