Everyday AI · Module 2

Improve one thing at a time

Suggested time: 6 minutes.

A first attempt gives you something to inspect. Improvement works best when you name an observable issue and change the instruction most directly connected to it.

Use this small cycle:

1. Write the criteria before comparing responses.
2. Run the brief and save the response.
3. Name one mismatch between the response and those criteria.
4. Revise the relevant instruction while keeping the source and other requirements stable.
5. Compare the new response with the same criteria, including factual accuracy.

This helps you understand the change. It does not prove that one prompt will always produce the same result. One successful revision is evidence about this example, not a guarantee for every future task.

Worked before and after

Our criteria are the five format and meaning requirements from Lesson 4. The first brief specifies most of them but does not explicitly request topic labels.

Copyable first brief:

Task: Draft an internal progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop. Audience and purpose: The coordinator needs to scan progress and unresolved items. Constraints: Use only the source notes. Preserve pending approvals and unconfirmed details. Do not add dates, owners, reasons or promises. For the practice-session date, write "not provided" if the notes contain no date. Format: Exactly three bullets, one per note, under 70 words in total. End each bullet with its source label. Do not add an introduction or conclusion. Checks: Before returning the draft, check that each statement matches its note and that the format is followed.

Source notes — fictional exercise W1: The invitation draft is complete. Coordinator approval is pending. W2: The room has been requested. Venue availability is not confirmed. W3: A practice session has been proposed. These notes give no session date. End of source notes

Illustrative first response:

• The invitation draft is complete; coordinator approval is pending. [W1]
• The room has been requested; venue availability is unconfirmed. [W2]
• A practice session is proposed; its date is not provided. [W3]

This preserves the facts and meets the written first brief. However, it lacks the topic labels we wanted for quick scanning. The mismatch comes from an unstated expectation, not from evidence that the assistant ignored an instruction.

Focused revision: replace only the Format line with:

Format: Exactly three bullets, one per note, under 70 words in total. Begin the bullets with "Invitation:", "Room:" and "Practice session:" respectively. End each bullet with its source label. Do not add an introduction or conclusion.

Keep all other lines and W1 to W3 unchanged. Save the resulting complete brief as your revised version; the replacement line alone is not a self-contained prompt.

Illustrative revised response:

• Invitation: Draft complete; coordinator approval pending. [W1]
• Room: Requested; venue availability unconfirmed. [W2]
• Practice session: Proposed; date not provided. [W3]

Compare both responses with the same checklist. Both preserve the notes and meet the length and bullet requirements. The second also has the requested topic labels.

Example change note:

“I wanted topic labels for scanning, but my first brief did not ask for them. I added the three labels to the Format line. The revised response includes them and still preserves all pending details.”

Avoid vague follow-ups such as “try harder” or “make it much better.” If you continue in the same chat, name the exact correction. Also save a complete revised brief so you can see what instructions produced the result.