Multi-Option Decision Matrix | Follow-Along Exercise

Ce que vous allez créer

A text deliverable that fits the task, a fact-check sheet and a reusable prompt.

Ce qu’il vous faut

• A chat, image or video tool suited to the task (PromptKite does not provide model credits)
• Your own input materials and a folder for saving results

Étapes

1. Define the inputs for this exercise

   The demo inputs for this exercise are: Options: Fictional Option A: ¥0 per month, templates must be organized manually; Option B: ¥30 per month, has tag filtering but no export. Neither has actually been tried; Criteria: cost, learning time, maintenance effort. First confirm whether these conditions fit your situation; replace “paste your material” in the example with real material. Write the goal as a deliverable you can check against.

2. Run it once for your scenario

   Replace the placeholder material in the example with real material you can provide, then give the complete prompt to a chat tool. Redact personal or business information as needed first; if the model asks about missing facts, supply the material rather than asking it to make things up. Focus of this task: build a comparison table by criteria using only the information provided; leave unknowns blank and note how to verify them.

3. Check against the criteria and revise

   Check the output against the input: “Do the weights come from your own preferences, and are unknown costs marked? Verify names, numbers and qualifiers in the input.” Tag each conclusion with its supporting material; move anything unsupported to a “to be confirmed” section. Pick one wording or structural problem to fix and compare the old and new versions, rather than just asking for it to be “more professional.”

4. Save and review

   Save the final result, the prompt, the source of your input material and one reason for a change. Name files with the date plus the task name; save reusable versions to your PromptKite Prompt Pocket. Next time, change one condition and try again, noting whether the result still holds.

Pièges fréquents

• The input is still placeholder text, so the output looks empty — Replace placeholders such as “paste your material” in the example with real material; state clearly that missing facts are unknown instead of asking the model to fill them in.
• The result doesn't meet the standard for this scenario — Check the output against the input: “Do the weights come from your own preferences, and are unknown costs marked? Verify names, numbers and qualifiers in the input.” Tag each conclusion with its supporting material; move anything unsupported to a “to be confirmed” section. Pick one wording or structural problem to fix and compare the old and new versions, rather than just asking for it to be “more professional.”

Modèle d’exercice

Complete the task using the following inputs: the options are “{subject}”; the criteria are cost, learning time and maintenance effort. Build a comparison table by criteria using only the information provided; leave unknowns blank and note how to verify them. Explain the trade-offs between criteria and give decision paths under different priorities, without using made-up scores to dress up a conclusion as objective. Output in this order: understanding and assumptions, ready-to-use text, information I need to confirm, and next steps. Use clear, short sentences and avoid empty slogans; if key inputs are missing, ask at most three specific questions instead of filling in facts with guesses. Finally, check item by item whether it meets my purpose, and state clearly which results still need human review.