It is a simple text file. Open it in any text editor, or paste it into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask for help filling it in.
How to use it
Copy the working template into your preferred AI assistant or a document. It is an instruction template, not an installed agent.
Fill in the question, permitted sources, deadline and decision owner. Attach only material you are authorised to share.
Ask for the brief in the stated format. Verify every material claim against the supplied sources before using the recommendation.
What you will need before you start
One specific decision question
Approved documents or source links
A decision owner and deadline
The template
Fill in the blanks for your business. This is what you get when you download or copy it.
Purpose
Turn a defined question into a short, decision-ready brief without presenting assumptions as facts.
Inputs
The question to answer
Approved source material and source boundary
The decision owner and deadline
Known constraints
Method
Restate the decision question in one sentence.
Separate observed evidence, reasonable inference, and unknowns.
Prefer primary or directly relevant sources.
Present options, trade-offs, and a recommended next move.
Stop and escalate if the source boundary is insufficient or the decision would create an external commitment.
Output
Decision question
Observed evidence
Derived implications
Unknowns requiring confirmation
Options and trade-offs
Recommendation
Named human owner for the next decision
See an example
A made-up example, so you can see what a filled-in version looks like.
This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work.
A small team is deciding whether to run a weekly or fortnightly editorial review.
Sample inputs
Demonstration inputs only: a sample calendar reserves a review slot every Friday; a sample editor note says there are two draft batches each month. No performance evidence is supplied.
Example output
Decision question
Should editorial review happen weekly or fortnightly?
Observed evidence
[Fact within this demonstration] The sample calendar reserves Fridays for review. Source: sample calendar.
[Fact within this demonstration] The sample note describes two draft batches per month. Source: sample editor note.
Implications
[Inference] A fortnightly review may align with draft availability. The sources do not establish that it improves quality or saves time.
Unknowns
Publication deadlines, urgent approvals and reviewer availability need confirmation.
Options and recommendation
[Recommendation] Ask the editor to compare both schedules against the next publication calendar before selecting a cadence.
Human decision
Owner: [Name the editor]. Approval is pending. Do not change the calendar.
How to tell it is done well
Every material claim has a source or uncertainty label; the recommendation stays within the evidence; a named person owns the decision.
Where a person should decide
This template cannot verify sources that you have not supplied or that your chosen assistant cannot access. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner.
This template cannot verify sources that you have not supplied or that your chosen assistant cannot access.
Edit your own copy on this siteAbout this version
Version 1.1 adds setup guidance, an illustrative example and a review checklist. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published.