Everyday AI · Module 2

Turn a vague request into a usable brief

Suggested time: 20 minutes.

Your starting request and source pack

Vague request:

“Make a good workshop update from this.”

Fictional notes:

• G1: The sign-in sheet draft is complete. Review is pending.
• G2: Twenty chairs have been requested. The venue has not confirmed how many chairs are available.
• G3: A welcome reader is needed. These notes do not name a reader or give a deadline for assigning one.

The reader is the workshop coordinator. They need to scan three topics before a meeting and see what still needs attention. The task is a practice draft only.

Part A Write the brief

Spend about 7 minutes.

Write a complete prompt using these six headings. Replace every placeholder before running it.

Task: [What should the assistant produce?] Audience and purpose: [Who needs the result, and why?] Constraints: [Which facts may be used? What must be preserved? What happens when information is missing?] Format: [Bullet count, topic labels, length and source labels.] Checks: [What should be checked before the draft is returned?]

Source notes — fictional exercise [Paste G1 to G3 exactly as supplied.] End of source notes

Target requirements:

• Exactly three bullets, starting “Sign-in sheet:”, “Chairs:” and “Welcome reader:”.
• Under 80 words in total, with no introduction or conclusion.
• Use only G1 to G3; keep review and availability caveats.
• In the third bullet, state that the reader and assignment deadline are not provided.
• Include the correct source label at the end of each bullet.

Before running the brief, compare it with this list. Is any target still only in your head rather than written into the prompt?

Part B Run and review

Spend about 6 minutes.

Run your brief in an approved text chat and save the exact prompt and response. Check all five target requirements and compare every claim with G1 to G3.

Use this short review record:

Three bullets and required topic labels: met / needs correction Under 80 words with no extra text: met / needs correction Only source facts and preserved caveats: met / needs correction Missing reader and assignment deadline marked: met / needs correction Correct source labels: met / needs correction One issue I can point to:

Do not mark a criterion “met” merely because the assistant says it checked it. Look at the response yourself.

Part C Revise and compare

Spend about 7 minutes.

Choose one observable issue. Amend the relevant line of your brief, keep the source unchanged and run the revised complete brief. Save the second response and compare it with the same five requirements.

If the first response already meets every requirement, record that honestly. Then make one explicit preference more precise, such as asking for simple sentences instead of compressed phrases. Check both outputs against the original five requirements and separately note whether the added preference was met. Do not invent an error to justify a revision.

Your change note should name the problem or added preference, quote the changed instruction and describe the observed result. If the second response still misses the target, record that and correct it before accepting the practice draft.

Offline route: write a brief, then review this supplied illustrative response against the five requirements:

“Sign-in sheet: Draft complete; review pending. [G1] Chairs: Twenty requested; availability unconfirmed. [G2] Welcome reader: Reader not provided. [G3]”

Identify the missing deadline statement and the lack of separate bullets. Choose one problem for your focused brief revision; then manually correct both problems in the final output. Label your record as an offline review. You can test both briefs in a chat tool when access is available.

Independent assignment Improve a briefing handover

Suggested time: 15 minutes.

Your new fictional source pack

• I1: The handout layout is complete. The wording has not been reviewed.
• I2: A projector has been requested. The venue has not replied.
• I3: A ten-minute welcome has been proposed. Its length has not been approved. These notes do not name a speaker.

The coordinator needs a short internal update that distinguishes progress from unresolved details. Do not use facts from W1 to W3 or G1 to G3.

Define success and make two attempts

1. Write your success checklist before prompting. It must cover all six brief components and the output requirements below.
2. Write and run a complete first brief.
3. Check the response and name one mismatch or one clearly stated added preference.
4. Revise one part of the brief and run it again with the same source pack.
5. Compare both outputs using the same original output checklist. Check an added preference separately if you introduced one.
6. Correct any remaining factual or format defect and record the final accept-or-revise decision.

Required final output:

• Exactly three bullets, starting “Handout:”, “Projector:” and “Welcome:”.
• No more than 75 words, with no introduction or conclusion.
• One bullet per source note, ending with I1, I2 or I3 in square brackets.
• Preserve the wording-review gap, missing venue reply and unapproved welcome length.
• Mark the speaker as “not provided”; do not invent a person or claim nobody has been assigned.

Save both complete briefs, both corresponding responses, the checklist, your change note and the final checked output. If a corrected final output differs from the second response, label it as your correction rather than silently replacing the saved response.

Offline route: create both briefs and use the independent reference output in the solutions as the supplied response to review. State which parts you inspected and which changes remain untested in a live assistant. Do not claim you observed a prompt improvement that you did not run.

Why this assignment matters

You are making your expectations explicit and learning from a comparison. A longer prompt is not automatically better. A useful revision addresses something observable while protecting the facts that were already correct.

Formative self-assessment rubric

Mark each criterion “met” or “needs correction.” This module is practice; it has no separate numerical pass score.

• Complete brief: Both saved versions identify the task, audience and purpose, source, constraints, format and checks. The second version is self-contained.
• Defined missing-information behaviour: The brief explains what to do when a requested fact is absent; the final output follows that rule.
• Faithful and usable output: All required fields, caveats, labels and length limits are met without invented facts or commitments.
• Focused revision: The changed instruction addresses one named mismatch or added preference; the source pack stays unchanged.
• Honest comparison: Both responses are kept and assessed against the same original criteria. Any new preference, manual correction or offline limitation is recorded separately.
• Safe completion: Only fictional input is used, no message is sent, and a human review decision is visible.

Correct any privacy or factual gap before marking the work complete. If the revision improves formatting but loses an important condition, it is not ready to accept.

Self-check Before reading the answers

Spend about 5 minutes answering, then 5 minutes reviewing the solutions.

1. What useful information is missing from “Make this better”?
2. Which is an instruction and which is source material: “Use three bullets” and “The room has been requested”?
3. The notes do not name a speaker. Why is “speaker not provided” safer than “no speaker has been assigned”?
4. When should a brief ask a question before drafting rather than mark a fact as missing?
5. A response meets your written brief but lacks labels you wanted. What should you change, and what should your change note acknowledge?
6. Why keep the source material unchanged when testing a prompt revision?
7. Does asking the assistant to check its answer remove the need for your own review?
8. Your second response is shorter but drops “approval pending.” Is it an improvement you should accept? Explain.
9. The first response already meets the criteria. Must you claim that it failed so you can practise revision?

Read the separate answers and explanations