Mauricio Tapia.
Course index

Chapter 05 / 14 · Work with judgment

A good prompt makes the decision reviewable

Design instructions around the work and the output that will actually help.

Reading: 3 min · Suggested practice: 15–25 min

By the end of this chapter

Write, test and improve a prompt with verifiable requirements.

In this chapter

Define the deliverable first

A useful prompt specifies the goal, available information, task, constraints and expected output. A role can guide language, but “act as an expert” supplies neither evidence nor demonstrated expertise. Identify the decision the output supports and its reviewer.

Make the work inspectable. A commitments table with dates, owners and evidence is more useful than an elegant unsourced summary. Meeting preparation should include open questions. Calculations need reproducible formulas and units.

Context and examples

Separate instructions from input documents with labels or delimiters. Specify which source is current and how to handle missing data. A small acceptable-output example communicates detail and important distinctions.

Choose examples that expose difficult decisions: proposed versus confirmed dates, amounts without currency or duplicate records. Check performance on new cases rather than repetition of examples.

Request evidence and concise justification

Ask for supporting passages, calculations, uncertainties and summarized justification. An internal reasoning monologue is not necessary to assess a decision. Reviewable recommendations connect to evidence and explain what could change them.

Define responses to insufficient information: leave a field empty, ask a question or provide a bounded partial analysis. Pressure to complete a table must not produce fabricated details.

Improve through tests

Version the prompt and test normal, incomplete and contradictory cases. Change one significant instruction at a time when you need to understand its effect. Assess accuracy, omissions and review effort.

Style improvement does not establish decision quality. Evaluate against pre-existing criteria. Recheck important cases when models, tools or sources change. Prompts are part of a process, not replacements for data and controls.

Worked case

Weak request: “Analyze sales and tell me where to focus.” It leaves periods, units, sources and priorities unspecified. Reviewable request: “Use these opportunities as of October 9; identify overdue confirmed commitments; separate incomplete records; provide evidence and proposed next actions.”

A large account without a date does not automatically become urgent. Potential importance and missing information remain separate from urgency.

Practice instructions

Goal: prepare Monday's commercial meeting.
Input: supplied records as of October 9.
Rule: overdue = a confirmed date before the cut-off without completion evidence.
Output: ID, fact, source, open issue, proposed action and owner.
Limits: do not fill missing amounts, dates or owners; do not send messages.
Quality: separate conflicts and show missing fields.

Your turn

Improve “make an executive report on these accounts.” Test one undated account, a duplicate and conflicting commitments. Record one prompt change and its effect.

Show the commented solution

Define purpose, cut-off date, sources, priority criteria, output and limits. Tests must preserve missing data, flag possible duplicates and reveal conflicts. A change that reduces omissions but adds unsupported interpretations is not acceptable.

Evaluate your work

  • The output is defined.
  • Rules are checkable.
  • Missing information stays visible.
  • Tests include difficult cases.

Sources and technical reading

Sources support technical concepts. Business cases, rubrics and practice instructions are teaching proposals developed for this course.

Before moving on

Check your exercise against the criteria. Keep sources and your changes: they will support the final project.

Editorial review: September 29, 2026 · All case examples and figures are fictional. Study times are estimates.