Diagnose the Output Before Revising the Prompt
Work through the explanation, apply it to the example, and complete the quick check before continuing.
Do not change everything at once
When an output is weak, people often add be better, be accurate, or many unrelated instructions.
That makes it difficult to know what fixed the problem. First name the defect. Then change the part of the specification connected to it.
Match defects to changes
| Output defect | Likely specification gap | Targeted revision |
|---|---|---|
| Solves the wrong problem | Outcome unclear | State deliverable, purpose, and success condition |
| Wrong level or tone | Audience unclear | Describe audience knowledge and need |
| Invented facts | Sources/boundary unclear | Name allowed sources and missing-information rule |
| Too broad | Scope unclear | Add exclusions, length, period, or boundary |
| Hard to review | Format unclear | Require headings, fields, table, or evidence links |
| Looks good but misses essentials | Criteria missing | Add observable review criteria |
| Copies example details | Example role unclear | Label example as form/style, not factual source |
| Acts too early | Approval boundary missing | Require review before action and name approver |
Separate specification failure from model failure
A clear specification can still produce a weak result. The system may miss a rule, misunderstand context, or generate unsupported content.
If the specification was clear, do not endlessly rewrite it to excuse unreliable behaviour. Try a controlled retry, use a different method, reduce the scope, or keep the task human-led.
Keep a small revision record
For important work, record:
- Observed defect.
- Evidence of the defect.
- Specification change.
- New result.
- Remaining problem.
- Decision: accept, revise, change tool, or stop.
This turns iteration into learning rather than random prompt expansion.
Worked diagnosis
Output problem:
The event email invented free parking and a registration deadline.
Diagnosis:
The request said
write an event emailbut did not name the allowed source or missing-information rule.
Targeted revision:
Use only the approved event facts. Do not add transport, parking, price, capacity, deadlines, or contact details unless stated. Mark any required missing detail for the organiser to supply.
Review still remains necessary because the system may ignore or misapply the instruction.
Quick check
An answer is accurate but far too technical for new learners. What should you revise first?
A. Add more unrelated examples. B. Define the audience’s knowledge and required level of explanation. C. Ask for a longer answer. D. Remove all review criteria.
Check the answer
Answer: B. The defect concerns audience fit, so revise the audience description and level.
Remember
- Name the defect before changing the specification.
- Change the relevant field, then compare results.
- Clear instructions do not guarantee compliance.
- Change the tool or stop when repeated output remains unsuitable.
You are ready to improve three vague requests independently.