Research & Strategy prompts

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Turn a broad question into a focused research plan with subquestions and evidence standards.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Turn a broad question into a focused research plan with subquestions and evidence standards.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Turn a broad question into a focused research plan with subquestions and evidence standards.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Turn a broad question into a focused research plan with subquestions and evidence standards.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Turn a broad question into a focused research plan with subquestions and evidence standards.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Build a framework for comparing alternatives using verifiable criteria and uncertainty markers.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Build a framework for comparing alternatives using verifiable criteria and uncertainty markers.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Build a framework for comparing alternatives using verifiable criteria and uncertainty markers.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Build a framework for comparing alternatives using verifiable criteria and uncertainty markers.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Build a framework for comparing alternatives using verifiable criteria and uncertainty markers.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Estimate what must be true for an opportunity to be real and what evidence to gather.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Estimate what must be true for an opportunity to be real and what evidence to gather.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Estimate what must be true for an opportunity to be real and what evidence to gather.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Estimate what must be true for an opportunity to be real and what evidence to gather.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Estimate what must be true for an opportunity to be real and what evidence to gather.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write an executive memo presenting options, constraints, recommendation, and risks.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write an executive memo presenting options, constraints, recommendation, and risks.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write an executive memo presenting options, constraints, recommendation, and risks.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write an executive memo presenting options, constraints, recommendation, and risks.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write an executive memo presenting options, constraints, recommendation, and risks.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Explore plausible futures, signals to monitor, and resilient decisions.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Explore plausible futures, signals to monitor, and resilient decisions.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Explore plausible futures, signals to monitor, and resilient decisions.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Explore plausible futures, signals to monitor, and resilient decisions.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Explore plausible futures, signals to monitor, and resilient decisions.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Identify hidden premises in a proposal and design tests that could disprove them.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Identify hidden premises in a proposal and design tests that could disprove them.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Identify hidden premises in a proposal and design tests that could disprove them.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Identify hidden premises in a proposal and design tests that could disprove them.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Identify hidden premises in a proposal and design tests that could disprove them.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write unbiased questions for qualitative interviews with meaningful follow-ups.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write unbiased questions for qualitative interviews with meaningful follow-ups.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write unbiased questions for qualitative interviews with meaningful follow-ups.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write unbiased questions for qualitative interviews with meaningful follow-ups.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Write unbiased questions for qualitative interviews with meaningful follow-ups.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Review a claim for missing evidence, alternative explanations, and logical weaknesses.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Review a claim for missing evidence, alternative explanations, and logical weaknesses.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Review a claim for missing evidence, alternative explanations, and logical weaknesses.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Review a claim for missing evidence, alternative explanations, and logical weaknesses.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Review a claim for missing evidence, alternative explanations, and logical weaknesses.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Condense a complicated report into decision-ready findings with caveats and next steps.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Condense a complicated report into decision-ready findings with caveats and next steps.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Condense a complicated report into decision-ready findings with caveats and next steps.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Condense a complicated report into decision-ready findings with caveats and next steps.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Condense a complicated report into decision-ready findings with caveats and next steps.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Rank competing initiatives using impact, feasibility, dependencies, and reversibility.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — STEP-BY-STEP BLUEPRINT
Start by restating the goal in one sentence and identifying the three most important constraints. Develop a step-by-step approach ordered by impact and effort. Include a concrete example tailored to the supplied inputs, a practical checklist, and the first small action to take today.

DELIVERABLE
A clear plan with numbered phases, a worked example, and a short ready-to-use checklist.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Rank competing initiatives using impact, feasibility, dependencies, and reversibility.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — CREATIVE IDEA LAB
Explore several genuinely different creative directions, including a conservative option, a surprising angle, and a lean low-cost alternative. Explain who each approach fits and what makes it different. Select the strongest direction and refine it with a memorable example.

DELIVERABLE
Seven distinct ideas, a comparison of the top three, one refined concept, and two experiments to validate it.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Rank competing initiatives using impact, feasibility, dependencies, and reversibility.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — EXPERT CRITIQUE & UPGRADE
Approach this like a candid expert reviewer. Diagnose common weak points and hidden assumptions. Prioritize problems by likely impact and ease of fixing them. Suggest precise improvements, show a before-and-after example, and note which missing facts would change your recommendation.

DELIVERABLE
An audit table, the three highest-impact fixes, an improved example, and verification questions.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Rank competing initiatives using impact, feasibility, dependencies, and reversibility.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — DONE-FOR-YOU TOOLKIT
Produce practical, reusable materials that someone can adapt immediately. Include a fill-in template with [placeholders], a polished filled example based only on known details, and two versions for different situations. Make each item self-contained and easy to copy.

DELIVERABLE
A copy-ready template, one fully written example, two variations, and concise customization notes.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a critical-thinking researcher and strategic analyst.

MY PROJECT
I want to: Rank competing initiatives using impact, feasibility, dependencies, and reversibility.

CONTEXT TO USE
[Describe your specific situation here.] Include what you know about: research question, decision context, available evidence, timeframe, and audience. If essential details are missing, ask up to three targeted questions; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and move forward.

YOUR APPROACH — 7-DAY ACTION SPRINT
Turn the objective into a realistic seven-day sprint, with daily outcomes, a time-boxed task, and a definition of done. Include a lightweight tracking method, a likely obstacle for each phase, and a recovery path if one day is missed. Prefer momentum over perfection.

DELIVERABLE
A day-by-day plan, measurable milestones, a risk-and-response table, and a final review rubric.

QUALITY STANDARD
Distinguish evidence, assumptions, and unknowns; cite sources when available. Be specific rather than generic. Use plain language, concrete examples, and a format I can put into practice without additional explanation.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Refine a broad topic into a useful question with a clear decision, scope, audience, and evidence need. Identify what should be excluded and what terms require operational definitions.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A focused question, subquestions, scope boundaries, and a practical evidence-gathering plan. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Evaluate a set of sources for relevance, methods, authority, incentives, recency, and limitations. Distinguish direct evidence from commentary and identify which claims cannot be supported from the material.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A source appraisal table, claim-evidence map, confidence notes, and gaps requiring additional research. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare sources that reach different conclusions. Examine definitions, samples, methods, timeframes, and assumptions before deciding whether the conflict is substantive or caused by different questions.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A disagreement map, strongest argument on each side, unresolved questions, and a cautious synthesis. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Develop a research interview that explores actual behavior, context, tradeoffs, and unmet needs. Avoid leading questions and make space for unexpected themes without losing the purpose.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An interview guide, neutral follow-ups, consent and recording considerations, and an analysis framework. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Compare alternatives around the jobs people need done rather than a superficial feature checklist. Include direct competitors, substitutes, switching costs, and the evidence behind perceived differences.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A comparison framework, research questions, positioning hypotheses, and a list of assumptions to validate. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Review survey questions for ambiguity, double-barreled wording, leading language, missing options, and recall burden. Connect each item to a decision and explain what responses can and cannot establish.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
Revised questions, answer formats, a pilot checklist, and an interpretation guide with limitations. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Synthesize provided qualitative notes into themes while retaining meaningful differences and contradictory evidence. Avoid counting repeated statements as independent proof and preserve traceability to the original material.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A theme structure, supporting excerpts, tensions or exceptions, and implications framed as hypotheses. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Prepare a decision brief when evidence is incomplete. Clarify available options, stakes, reversible versus irreversible choices, and the value of obtaining more information before acting.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
An options table, uncertainty register, recommendation conditions, and a small next evidence-gathering step. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Design a short research sprint that answers the most consequential questions first. Balance methods, participant access, available time, and the need for synthesis rather than collecting material endlessly.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A time-boxed schedule, prioritized questions, method rationale, and a decision-ready deliverable outline. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — A SMALL INDEPENDENT PROJECT
Assume limited time, little budget, and no dedicated research team. Use accessible sources, a narrow question, and explicit boundaries on what can be concluded.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Begin with the central decision and the supplied constraints. Work through the task in a clear sequence. Show one concrete example before giving the reusable final result. Explain any important dependency that changes the order of work.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — AN INTERNAL BUSINESS DECISION
Connect the research to a practical decision with clear stakeholders and a deadline. Distinguish information that changes the decision from interesting but nonessential detail.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Develop three genuinely different directions before selecting one to refine. Explain the tradeoff behind the selection and retain one unexpected but practical alternative. Make the final result distinctive without adding complexity that the situation cannot support.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — AN EARLY EXPLORATION
Assume the topic is unfamiliar and the initial framing may change. Begin with vocabulary and landscape mapping before committing to a narrow interpretation.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Produce a ready-to-use artifact that can be adapted without reconstructing your reasoning. Include a short worked example and clearly mark the fields the user should replace. Keep essential instructions next to the part of the artifact they govern.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — CONFLICTING AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Expect sources with different methods, incentives, and conclusions. Surface the disagreement and specify what additional evidence would most help resolve it.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Examine the difficult edge cases and hidden assumptions before finalizing the output. Compare a conventional approach with a credible alternative. Include an explicit review of likely failure modes and explain which evidence would change your recommendation.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — A NONEXPERT AUDIENCE
Explain terminology and methods in plain language without erasing uncertainty. Use examples and distinguish a useful simplified explanation from an unsupported certainty.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Provide the requested core deliverable, then organize practical follow-through into a seven-day plan. Give each day a clear action and completion signal, account for preparation and review, and offer a shorter fallback if the available time is limited.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.

Act as a careful research strategist and evidence analyst.

THE TASK
Turn a collection of research findings into a concise brief for a specific audience. Lead with the decision-relevant conclusion, show supporting evidence, and make limitations visible without burying the main point.

THE SETTING — A REPEATABLE RESEARCH PROCESS
Create a documented method another person can follow later. Specify source selection, inclusion criteria, notes, quality checks, and how updates should change the conclusion.

MY DETAILS
Use [my specific goal], [the audience or people involved], [source material or starting point], [available time and resources], and [non-negotiable constraints]. Treat these as editable inputs. If an essential detail is missing, ask one focused question; otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.

HOW TO WORK
Create a strong first version and then critique it against the stated goal. Revise the weakest part rather than rewriting everything. Show the key before-and-after change and finish with a short checklist the user can apply independently.

WHAT TO DELIVER
A one-page brief, evidence appendix outline, confidence statements, and questions the reader should resolve next. Tailor every section to the setting above and the details I supply. Make the final artifact usable, not just a list of general suggestions.

QUALITY CHECK
Separate evidence, assumptions, and recommendations. Never invent citations or claim current verification without sources. Assess quality, uncertainty, conflicting findings, and what further evidence could change the conclusion. Close with the smallest useful next step and identify one assumption I should verify before relying on the result.