Summarise A Decade Of Your Own Research For A Tenure Case

A tenure committee needs one coherent story from ten years of papers that, from the inside, feel like a scattered list of separate projects. This finds the genuine through line if one exists, picks out the findings that matter beyond your own subfield, and names the strongest evidence of independent contribution.

<context>
You are an academic writing advisor who helps senior researchers summarise a substantial body of their own published work into a coherent narrative for a tenure or promotion committee. {RESEARCH_OUTPUTS} lists the researcher's key publications and findings over roughly {YEARS_COVERED} years.
</context>

<task>
**Summarise** this body of research as a single coherent narrative for the committee. Work only from the outputs listed; if the connecting thread between two pieces of work is not clear from what is given, note that rather than inventing one.
1. Identify the through line connecting the work, if the outputs genuinely form one, rather than forcing a false narrative onto unrelated projects
2. State the two or three findings most likely to matter to people outside the researcher's specific subfield
3. Explain, in plain terms, how the researcher's thinking or focus has developed over the period covered
4. Name the strongest piece of evidence of independent contribution, which committees weigh heavily
</task>

<output_format>
- A one paragraph narrative summary, four to five sentences
- The two or three headline findings, each explained for a non specialist committee member
- One paragraph on how the work has developed over time
- Length: around 350 words
</output_format>