Review edition · Complete text lesson. Platform screenshots are being prepared.
Suppose you could…
Make a recommendation you can defend
Compare options against explicit constraints, verify simple calculations and make a conditional recommendation with traceable evidence.
Time is a practice estimate. Pause or return whenever you need.A useful little possibility.
AI can make every option sound like the obvious winner. You’ll give it clear criteria and three fictional venue factsheets, then review the recommendation yourself. Your result: a short comparison and a defensible decision memo, with an important unknown kept visible.
Let’s make a start.
Minute 0–3: identify the hard requirements. Calculate each two-hour room-hire cost yourself.
Minute 3–7: submit the prompt and factsheets. Ask the AI to distinguish known failures from unknown information.
Minute 7–11: verify the arithmetic and inspect whether it treated “not stated” as either yes or no. Neither is justified.
Minute 11–15: write a recommendation under 150 words with the condition that would change your choice. Save it with the comparison.
Your sample material
Fictional training material. No real customer information needed.
FICTIONAL FACTSHEETS — NOT REAL VENUES OR CURRENT QUOTES Need: a two-hour workshop for 18 people; room-hire budget no more than 200 euros; step-free access required; prefer a whiteboard. Compare room hire only; no information on taxes, deposits, extras or availability is provided. A. Alder Room: 24 seats; 80 euros/hour; step-free access confirmed; whiteboard included. B. Birch Room: 20 seats; 65 euros/hour; step-free access not stated; whiteboard included. C. Cedar Room: 16 seats; 70 euros/hour; step-free access confirmed; no whiteboard. Factsheet IDs are A, B and C. There are no source URLs because these are fictional training inputs.Download sample .txt ↓
Compare the three fictional room options against the stated requirements. Show the two-hour room-hire calculation for each. Label each hard requirement as met, not met or unknown, with its factsheet ID. Treat missing access or availability information as unknown. Do not invent prices, fees, URLs or current availability. Recommend the best-supported provisional option, identify what to confirm before booking and explain what new evidence could change the choice. Do not book anything. REQUIREMENTS AND FACTSHEETS: [Paste the sample input here.]
Keep personal and confidential information out of external AI tools. Start with the sample material.
Turn a first try into your thing.
If AI recommends Birch solely because it is cheapest, ask what evidence supports the access requirement. If it excludes Birch as inaccessible, ask where the source says that.
Ask for a revised recommendation that is conditional rather than overconfident. Edit the final paragraph yourself so it names the decisive criteria and the unanswered questions.
Pause for the “aha.”
A good recommendation is a reasoned link between criteria and evidence. It does not need to erase uncertainty. AI can organise a comparison, but you remain responsible for checking numbers, sources and whether your criteria actually matter.
These factsheets are invented for practice. For a real purchase or booking, consult current primary sources and confirm total costs and availability. A completed training memo is not permission to act.
Useful beats convincing.
Check these against your actual output. Your answers stay on this device; this is self-review, not automated grading.
Finished your first try? Reveal a worked example ↓
Alder: 2 × 80 = 160 euros; 24 seats meets capacity; step-free access confirmed; whiteboard included (A).
Birch: 2 × 65 = 130 euros; 20 seats meets capacity; access unknown; whiteboard included (B).
Cedar: 2 × 70 = 140 euros; 16 seats fails the 18-person requirement; access confirmed; no whiteboard (C).
Recommendation: Alder is the best-supported provisional choice because it meets the stated room-hire budget, capacity and access requirements and includes a whiteboard. Before booking, confirm availability and any additional charges. Birch costs 30 euros less for room hire and could become preferable if step-free access and total costs are confirmed. Cedar does not fit 18 people on the supplied facts.
Why it works: an unknown is not turned into a fact, and the recommendation states what could change it.
A new case. Your own approach.
Apply the review principles to these new facts, not the previous sample’s specific numbers or answers.
WITHOUT THE STARTER PROMPT: The group is now 15 people, the room-hire budget is 150 euros and a whiteboard is optional. Reassess all three options without changing their factsheets. Explain why Cedar may now be the best-supported provisional option and why Birch still needs an access check.
One possibility leads to another.
Apply the comparison method to a low-stakes personal choice using current sources you verify. Start with criteria rather than asking the AI for “the best” option.
Your reusable workflow card ↓
WORKFLOW: DEFENSIBLE RECOMMENDATION Decision: __________ Hard constraints: __________ Preferences: __________ Options and dated primary evidence: __________ Method: calculate comparable totals; mark each constraint met / not met / unknown; compare; recommend conditionally. Review: reproduce calculations; verify source freshness; distinguish absent evidence from evidence of absence. Output: comparison + recommendation + what would change my mind + checks before acting. My final decision remains a human decision.Download workflow .txt ↓
You tried something. That counts.
Keep a note of what you made or what surprised you. It stays in this browser.