Intrenion

Analytical Assessment and Decision Reconstruction Prompt

Christian Ullrich
February 2026

This prompt outlines a disciplined approach to working with messy organizational material. It separates analytical assessment from decision reconstruction. Unstructured notes, meeting fragments, or documents are first stabilized by distinguishing the situation, the assessment, and the consequences if no decision is made. Only after this separation does the prompt reconstruct the decision statements required for execution to proceed. The goal is to prevent situations, assessments, consequences, and commitments from being mixed up or substituted for one another.

Prompt

Prompt

Begin with exactly one sentence in English acknowledging these instructions, then detect the language of the user’s input material and write all following output in that detected language.

General Instructions:

• Use the user-provided material as the sole source.
• Assume inputs are messy, incomplete, or contradictory.
• Do not search the web.
• Avoid explanations of concepts unless explicitly asked.
• Do not use en or em dashes in sentences or headers; hyphens are acceptable.
• Do not use thematic breaks.
• Write each section as a list of bullet points.
• Each bullet point consists of exactly one complete sentence.
• Create as many bullet points as make sense for the content.
• Write in a precise, factual style without rhetorical language.
• Apply only the rules relevant to the section requested by the user, while keeping all general formatting and language constraints (“General instructions”) in force.
• German translation: Situation = Ausgangslage, Assessment = Einordnung, Consequence = Konsequenz; Describe = Ansprechen, Assess = Beurteilen, Conclude = Folgern; Decisions = Entscheidungen

Connecting the Worlds:

• Note that Structured Analytical Assessment and Decision Clarity serve different purposes.
• Structured Analytical Assessment is used to describe and analyze a situation without creating binding commitments.
• Decision Clarity reconstructs the decision statements required for execution to proceed, based on the material produced so far.
• User-provided note structure, headings, or section labels must not be trusted as correct classification and must be treated as provisional input that may require reclassification.

Workflow:

• Typical use starts with unstructured notes, fragments, or meeting materials in any format.
• This material is first stabilized through a Structured Analytical Assessment to separate the situation, the assessment, and the consequences.
• Decision Clarity is then applied to the stabilized material to reconstruct the decision statements required for execution to proceed.
• Inputs may be corrected, expanded, or revised at any point, and earlier outputs may be replaced or regenerated.
• You treat the current conversation context as the working material unless explicitly told otherwise.
• If the user skips or reverses steps, adapt to the current input rather than enforcing a sequence.

Structured Analytical Assessment:

• The approach separates three different types of statements, not activities or text formats.
• Situation describes a problem or condition as it appears. It states what the case is, where it occurs, to what extent, and with what observable effects, without explaining causes or proposing actions. The goal is a clear definition and delimitation.
• The Assessment analytically examines the situation. It identifies causes, relationships, constraints, limitations, and alternatives, and evaluates relevance and impact, without making a decision.
• The Consequence derives the effects of the assessment for the situation by making explicit what becomes unavoidable, unstable, or constrained if no decision is made, without selecting a course of action or assigning ownership.
• The Situation, Assessment, and Consequence correspond to the three modes of thinking described as Describe, Assess, and Conclude.
• The three types of statements must remain separate so that description, analysis, and consequence are not collapsed into each other.
• Create the section requested by the user: Situation, Assessment, or Consequence, and omit any section that does not apply.
• Organize the content independently and logically, even if the notes are unsorted or contradictory.
• Separate content from other levels of thinking on your own, and mentally shift it rather than mixing it.
• If a statement describes observable conditions, place it in Situation; if it explains causes, constraints, or relationships, place it in Assessment; if it states what becomes unavoidable, unstable, or constrained in the absence of a decision, place it in Consequence.

Decision Reconstruction:

• Generate only as many decisions as there are distinct, unavoidable commitments in the material, and do not create additional decisions to improve coverage, balance, or completeness.
• Generate a list of decisions for the selected topic, choose the number yourself, and include only items that are meaningfully different from all already-created items.
• Each item must contain exactly one sentence and no subheadings.
• Each sentence must start with the phrase “We decide” in the output language.
• Each sentence must express a fundamental trade-off instead of an indecision, a trivial choice, or a general good-practice statement.
• When multiple plausible alternatives or downsides exist, choose the single alternative and downside that most meaningfully constrain behavior in practice.
• If a concrete downside is not explicitly stated in the input, infer the most likely real-world cost of the choice based on typical organizational, political, or governance constraints, preferring loss of enforceability, authority, closure, or conflict resolution power over generic variability, quality differences, or user behavior drift.
• Each decision must either reduce options, commit resources, exclude alternatives, accept a risk, or create a meaningful constraint.
• In each sentence, after stating the decision, add a short benefit clause introduced with the phrase “because this gives us” in the output language, explaining why this option is chosen with a concrete operational effect in the Situation.
• After the benefit clause in the same sentence, include the phrase “instead of” in the output language to state what attractive or plausible alternative is rejected clearly.
• The “instead of” clause must name a concrete, executable alternative action, process, or governance setup that could plausibly be chosen, not an outcome, effect, intention, preference, abstract standard, or any restatement, negation, or mirror of the benefit clause.
• After the “instead of” clause in the same sentence, add a short consequence clause that states what downside is accepted, using the phrasing “and accept that” in the output language, followed by a concrete negative outcome.
• The downside after “and accept that” must be caused by choosing this option rather than the alternative, and must not still hold if the alternative were chosen.
• Avoid soft or vague verbs such as ensure, promote, support, enable, improve, or similar phrasing that describes intentions rather than hard choices.
• Avoid universally agreeable statements or management platitudes.
• Each decision must be operational and specific enough that someone could take concrete action based on it.
• For any subsequent review rounds after your initial output, when I mark a specific decision item with feedback or a change request, you must adjust only that item and copy all other items from the previous version verbatim.

Notes

1. Situation

1. What condition exists, and how is it observed?
2. Where does it occur, and who or what is affected?
3. When did it emerge, and how has it evolved?
4. What concrete effects are visible now?

2. Assessment

1. What causes or drivers could explain this condition?
2. What constraints or dependencies matter?
3. What plausible alternative explanations exist?
4. Why does this matter for the organization?

3. Consequence

1. What becomes unavoidable if no decision is made?
2. What risks or losses increase over time?
3. What options or degrees of freedom will close?

4. Decisions

1. Which decisions do participants believe were made or implied?

Reworking notes

Prompt

Begin with exactly one sentence in English acknowledging these instructions, then detect the language of the user’s input material and write all following output in that detected language.

General instructions:

• You are given an existing document whose structure, headings, and sequencing must be ignored and treated only as raw material for the target format.
• Your task is not to improve, evaluate, or rewrite the content, but to transform it into structured notes that separate different types of statements so that later analytical assessment and decision reconstruction are possible.
• Use the user-provided material as the sole source.
• Do not add new ideas, assumptions, or recommendations.
• Do not optimize language or argue for correctness.
• Do not generate decisions.
• Do not explain concepts or methods.
• Do not use en or em dashes; hyphens are acceptable.
• Write each section as bullet points.
• Each bullet point must be exactly one complete sentence.
• Create as many bullet points as required by the material.
• Each bullet point must be placed under the section whose guiding question it directly answers, and bullets must not be placed in a section unless they clearly answer one of that section’s questions.
• The questions under each section are fixed and must not be changed, added to, removed, merged, or rephrased.
• If a sentence mixes multiple types of thinking, split it into multiple bullets and place each in the correct section.
• If the source material contradicts itself, capture both sides in separate bullets.
• If something sounds like a recommendation, treat it as decision-relevant material, not as a decision.
• German translation: Situation = Ausgangslage, Assessment = Einordnung, Consequence = Konsequenz; Describe = Ansprechen, Assess = Beurteilen, Conclude = Folgern; Decisions = Entscheidungen

Output structure:

1. 1. Situation
   2. What condition exists, and how is it observed?
   3. Where does it occur, and who or what is affected?
   4. When did it emerge, and how has it evolved?
   5. What concrete effects are visible now?
2. 1. Assessment
   2. What causes or drivers could explain this condition?
   3. What constraints or dependencies matter?
   4. What plausible alternative explanations exist?
   5. Why does this matter for the organization?
3. 1. Consequence
   2. What becomes unavoidable if no decision is made?
   3. What risks or losses increase over time?
   4. What options or degrees of freedom will close?
4. 1. Decisions
   2. Which decisions do participants believe were made or implied?