An AI first pass can organise the work. A human second look can question the assumptions. Start with a prompt that makes room for both.
These are illustrative examples, not real case studies, testimonials, or past customer stories. Human review adds judgement, not a guarantee of truth.
Make one your own.
Replace every [bracketed placeholder] before submitting. “Use this prompt” carries the prompt, requested checks, and reviewer instructions into the studio in this browser tab. It does not submit a question or trigger a model call or charge. Studio sign-in may be required.
There is no live web access here. Supply relevant excerpts; a human must check current sources independently. Paste only anonymised, non-sensitive information: submitted questions are shared with studio reviewers. These examples do not accept file uploads.
01 / COMPARE BEFORE YOU COMMIT
Which software plan actually fits?
A tidy comparison is useful. A hidden seat minimum or renewal price can change the decision.
A prompt to start with
Compare [service A and plan] with [service B and plan] for a [team size]-person team doing [workflow]. Our must-haves are [features], our budget is [amount and currency] per [month/year], and our decision date is [date]. Use these pricing and terms excerpts, labelled with their official URLs and the date I checked them: [paste excerpts]. Build a side-by-side table covering billing period, seat minimums, usage limits, taxes or currency assumptions, introductory versus renewal pricing, cancellation terms, and export or migration restrictions. Calculate comparable totals using only supplied numbers and show the arithmetic. Mark missing or potentially stale facts as unverified rather than inventing current prices. Recommend a provisional fit, explain the trade-offs, and list questions a person should verify before purchase.
AI contribution
Normalise supplied plan details, show comparable costs, and surface the conditions that could reverse the recommendation.
Human judgement
Check official pricing and terms as of the decision date, reproduce the cost calculation, and decide whether workflow fit outweighs a cheaper headline price.
Requested checks
Accuracy — totals, billing periods, seat and usage assumptions.
Sources — current official plan and cancellation terms.
Intent — must-haves and budget, not feature-count bragging.
Clarity — a comparable table with caveats beside the numbers.
Instructions for the reviewer
Reviewer: independently check current official prices and terms for the supplied decision date; record URLs and dates checked. Recalculate costs on a consistent billing basis. Flag unsupported plan claims, renewal traps, and missing must-haves. Explain whether the provisional choice fits the stated workflow; leave unresolved details unverified.
02 / WEIGH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
Two studies. One practical decision.
Agreement is not the goal. Understanding why credible sources disagree is.
A prompt to start with
Help me decide whether to run a small pilot of [workplace or education intervention] for [population and setting]. Success would mean [outcome], with constraints of [budget, time, and acceptable risks]. Source A says [claim]; here is its title, date, URL, and relevant methods and results: [paste excerpt]. Source B disagrees: [paste title, date, URL, methods, and results]. Separate what each source actually measured from its interpretation. Compare study design, sample, comparison group, effect size, uncertainty, limitations, and relevance to our setting. Do not invent missing statistics or treat correlation as causation. Explain plausible reasons for disagreement, distinguish absence of evidence from evidence of no effect, and outline a provisional pilot-or-wait decision with measurable stop conditions and unresolved questions.
AI contribution
Build an evidence map, compare methods, and make the decision's assumptions and missing information visible.
Human judgement
Read original sources, check corrections and context, assess whether the studied population resembles this one, and decide what uncertainty is tolerable.
Requested checks
Accuracy — reported findings versus causal interpretation.
Sources — original methods, limitations, and later corrections.
Intent — evidence relevant to the actual pilot decision.
Clarity — uncertainty and stop conditions in plain language.
Instructions for the reviewer
Reviewer: read the original sources independently and check for corrections or newer evidence, recording URLs and dates. Verify quoted results and methodological differences. Challenge unjustified causal language and transfer to the proposed setting. State what evidence would change the decision and mark any inaccessible evidence unverified.
03 / LOOK BEYOND THE TOTAL
Does this cash-flow sheet add up?
A plausible closing balance can hide a broken reference or a payment counted twice.
A prompt to start with
Sanity-check a cash-flow forecast for [anonymised business or project] covering [months], in [currency]. I am pasting data, not uploading a spreadsheet. Here are the column headings, row labels, cell addresses, values, and formulas as text: [paste a small anonymised table, including opening cash, receipts, payments, and closing cash]. Our conventions are [positive/negative payment signs], [cash receipt timing], and [tax treatment]. Trace opening cash plus receipts minus payments through each month using those conventions. Check whether closing cash carries into the next opening balance, whether ranges omit rows, and whether copied formulas shift references incorrectly. Look for double-counted payments and confusion between revenue and cash collected. Show each calculation and proposed formula correction by cell address. Mark anything not inferable from the pasted data as unknown. End with a short test checklist, not financial advice.
AI contribution
Trace the pasted formulas, explain suspicious references, and suggest test cases such as zero receipts or a delayed payment.
Human judgement
Recalculate in the original sheet, inspect hidden rows and links the paste cannot expose, and validate payment timing against actual records.
Requested checks
Accuracy — arithmetic, signs, ranges, and carry-forward references.
Intent — cash timing rather than an accounting-profit calculation.
Clarity — cell-by-cell fixes and reproducible test cases.
Instructions for the reviewer
Reviewer: independently recalculate the pasted figures and test proposed formulas in a copy of the original sheet if you have authorised access. Check signs, carry-forwards, omitted rows, and double counting. Do not treat the paste as a complete workbook audit. Identify hidden-sheet or source-record checks the owner must perform and clearly mark unresolved assumptions.
04 / SAY IT WITH CARE
A difficult customer reply, without false promises.
Empathy matters. So does making only commitments the team can keep.
A prompt to start with
Draft a reply to a customer about [anonymised issue]. Their message, with names, account details, and sensitive information removed, is: [paste anonymised message]. Verified facts are [facts]; unresolved facts are [unknowns]. Our applicable policy says [paste non-sensitive policy excerpt], and I am authorised to offer [specific remedy or next step]. The audience is [customer context], the desired tone is [tone], and the response should be no more than [word count] words. Acknowledge the impact without assigning unsupported blame. Explain what we know and the next step without implying a refund, delivery date, or resolution we cannot promise. Use [approved next-update time, if any] only if provided. Give the draft, then a fact-and-commitment checklist linking each promise to the supplied authority. Flag missing information instead of filling it in.
AI contribution
Draft a calm, structured response and list the factual claims and commitments that need approval before sending.
Human judgement
Confirm the policy and authority, assess how the wording will land, and remove implications the customer could reasonably read as a promise.
Requested checks
Accuracy — confirmed facts and authorised commitments only.
Intent — acknowledge the concern without deflection or blame.
Clarity — a specific next step without misleading reassurance.
Instructions for the reviewer
Reviewer: check every factual statement and explicit or implied promise against the supplied policy and authority. Flag anything the sender must confirm internally. Read for empathy, defensiveness, and accidental guarantees; ensure the next step is understandable. Do not send the message: the sender must approve the final wording and verify that no sensitive details remain.
05 / PLAN FOR REAL LIFE
A family day that works for everyone.
The best-looking route is not always the one with step-free access, a nearby toilet, and room for a rest.
A prompt to start with
Suggest a relaxed one-day family itinerary in [destination] on [date and day of week], from [start location and time] to [end location and time]. We have [ages], [step-free or mobility requirements, without medical details], a maximum comfortable walking distance of [distance], and a budget of [amount and currency]. We need [toilet, meal, sensory, and rest requirements] and will use [transport]. Here are candidate venues and supplied official opening-hour, booking, and access excerpts with URLs and dates checked: [paste details]. Use only supplied venue facts; do not invent current opening hours or assume “accessible” means step-free throughout. Propose a timed route with travel and rest buffers, costs based on supplied prices, and a bad-weather alternative. Flag gaps in route access, lift availability, toilet access, opening hours, and reservation requirements for a human to confirm before booking or travelling.
AI contribution
Sequence the supplied options around the family's constraints, leave travel buffers, and list the practical unknowns.
Human judgement
Check current official hours and date-specific closures, confirm the actual access route with venues or transport providers, and decide if the pace is comfortable.
Requested checks
Accuracy — timings, costs, distances, and workable buffers.
Sources — current official hours, booking rules, and access information.
Intent — the family's specific needs rather than maximum sightseeing.
Clarity — a usable schedule, alternatives, and a before-you-go list.
Instructions for the reviewer
Reviewer: independently confirm date-specific opening hours, booking needs, step-free routes, lift status, and accessible toilets with current official sources or providers. Record URLs and dates checked; identify details to reconfirm before travel. Challenge tight transfers and excessive walking. Never infer suitability from an accessibility label alone; mark unresolved access needs unverified.