A brief loaded once and never revisited is better than nothing, but a thin brief limits how sharp drafts can be from the start - the difference between a generic-sounding first batch and one that already sounds specifically like the person, before any editing.
What a thin brief looks like
Something like "VP of Engineering, cares about scaling teams" gives the system almost nothing to work with beyond a title. It's technically accurate and functionally unhelpful - it doesn't say what this specific person actually believes about scaling teams, which is the part that would make a post sound like them rather than like any VP of Engineering.
What a useful brief includes instead
A real point of view - something this executive believes that not everyone in their role agrees with. Specific language they actually use, if there's a phrase or framing that recurs in how they talk. What they'd never say, even on-topic, since knowing the boundaries is as useful as knowing the content. None of this needs to be long - a few sharp sentences beat a generic paragraph.
Below the main Brief Sparky field you can also add an optional positioning claim - one sentence that states the argumentative point their content should support. Sparky uses it when selecting moments and when scoring drafts for distinctiveness, separate from the longer brief.
A side-by-side comparison
Thin: "VP of Engineering, cares about scaling teams." Useful: "Believes most companies over-hire engineers before they've actually validated the roadmap those engineers would build. Talks in terms of 'earned headcount' rather than growth targets. Would never publicly criticize a specific vendor by name, even when frustrated." The second version gives the system an actual person to sound like - a real, specific stance, real recurring language, and a real boundary - rather than a job title to generically represent.
Most executives don't have this written down anywhere, which makes writing the brief feel harder than it is. A useful shortcut: think of the last few times a colleague pushed back on something the executive said, or the last time they explained a decision to a skeptical audience - those moments usually contain the sharpest, most distinctive version of how they actually think, which is exactly the material a good brief should capture.
Why an assistant can gather this even without deep domain knowledge
An assistant handling upload doesn't need to independently identify the executive's point of view - they can simply ask the executive the shortcut question above directly, then write down the answer as the brief. The content of a good brief has to come from the executive; capturing and loading it doesn't.
Revisiting the brief periodically matters too, since positioning shifts over time - see how to spot when a voice profile needs a fresh brief update, and the full setup on SparkVox for executives.