Skip to main contentTurn a study-abroad conversation
MIKO · SYNTHESIS Why now Key trade-off Decision boundary User confirmed User confirmed User confirmed External verification Open the tool You · 01 Miko · 02 You · 03 Miko · 04
RYUGAKU JINJA · MIKO CONSULTATION SERIESSAMPLE · 01
MIKO STUDY-ABROAD CONSULTATION RESULT
Turn a study-abroad conversation
into a decision you can act on.
MIKO STUDY-ABROAD CONSULTATION RESULT
Confirmed conclusions, context, constraints, and next steps come first; the transcript remains at the end so the reasoning can be reviewed. This public specimen creates no session and calls no matching or generation service.
CONSULTATION VERDICT
Consultation conclusion
The question, treatment, comparison candidates, policy timing, and primary outcome are already stated. Professor and admissions details are unchecked, so the bottleneck is choosing whom to screen—not adding more pages.
Starting with the shortlist reduces aimless rewriting. Keep the method, research object, and obtainable data aligned; do not bend the design to resemble a candidate.
This synthetic, anonymous case names no real university, professor, or policy. Research proximity and willingness to supervise, available places, or admission likelihood are separate questions; the latter are listed under needs_verify.
CONFIRMED CONTEXT
Context and checks
Confirmed context is separated from facts that still require external checks. Fields without source text remain blank.
Goal
- Synthetic case goal: apply for an economics or policy-analysis master's program in April 2027 (date for demonstration only)
- Find a professor who could supervise environmental economics and causal inference; no school or professor is presupposed
Known material
- The question, treatment, comparison candidates, policy timing, and primary outcome each have a one-sentence draft
- The PSM–DID design, data fields, and identification threats are drafted
- Synthetic anonymous case: a regulatory change in an emissions-trading program in an unnamed city; its name, institution, and dates are not factual claims
Constraints
- Do not present assumed values or synthetic-case details as empirical findings
- Keep obtainable data aligned with the policy timing
- Do not infer a real university, professor, lab, or admissions system from the anonymous case
Still to verify
- needs_verify: Each candidate professor's recent three-year work, active projects, and lab direction (check official faculty or lab pages)
- needs_verify: Supervision fit, available places, contact practice, and language requirements (check current official admissions guidance and official contacts)
- needs_verify: Any real policy name, dates, data access, and variable definitions behind the synthetic case (do not put them in the plan until checked)
Next
Next
- 01
Next action: write the question, identification strategy, and data feasibility in one sentence each, then take them into professor matching.
Next - 02
Check topic, method, and recent three-year work; keep only candidates with a public basis for the fit.
Next - 03
Stop rule: if official pages do not confirm recent work, supervision practice, or current admissions guidance, do not contact the candidate or rewrite the plan—drop the candidate.
Next - 04
Only after the check passes, revise the question, literature link, and contribution around the real research fit.
Next
Shortlist professors and labs
Use your research direction, methods, and question for matching.
TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE
Conversation evidence
The summary is not a new conclusion detached from the conversation. The original exchange remains here, and read-only history never resends messages.
I have a research plan evaluating a regulatory change in an anonymous city's emissions-trading program with PSM and DID (a synthetic case), but I have not chosen a professor. Should I keep revising the plan first, or search for professors now?
First, let's check whether the plan is concrete enough to search with. Can you state the treatment group, comparison group, policy timing, and primary outcomes in one sentence each?
Yes. The two policy stages, data fields, and identification threats are drafted. I have not checked professor candidates, recent papers, lab directions, or current admissions guidance.
That is enough evidence to start screening, but not enough to rewrite the plan for a particular professor. Take the question, method, and data feasibility into professor matching first; keep only candidates whose fit is supported by official information. If the check fails, stop before contact or rewriting.