ChatGPT vs. Claude prompts for business.

You are helping prepare a sales follow-up after a discovery call.

Business objective:
Move the opportunity to a clear next step without pressure, invented details, or vague promises.

Use only the information provided below.

Inputs:
- Prospect and company: [INSERT]
- Call notes: [INSERT]
- Confirmed needs: [INSERT]
- Open questions: [INSERT]
- Approved offer details: [INSERT]
- Agreed next step and date: [INSERT]

Before drafting:
1. Separate confirmed facts from assumptions.
2. Identify any missing information that would change the message.
3. Flag promises or claims that require approval.

Then produce:
- a concise subject line
- a 150–220 word follow-up email
- a three-item recap of agreed points
- one explicit next action with owner and date
- a short CRM note

Do not invent pricing, timing, capabilities, or customer commitments.

Help prepare a response to a customer complaint.

Goal:
Acknowledge the concern, reduce friction, and move the matter toward resolution while staying within approved facts and remedies.

Materials:
- Customer complaint: [INSERT]
- Order or service record: [INSERT]
- Relevant policy: [INSERT]
- Prior communication: [INSERT]
- Confirmed facts: [INSERT]
- Authorized remedies or escalation options: [INSERT]

Process:
1. Summarize the complaint neutrally.
2. Separate confirmed facts, disputed points, and missing information.
3. Identify language that could sound dismissive, defensive, or like an unsupported admission.
4. Recommend the safest useful next step.

Draft:
- a calm response under 220 words
- a short internal escalation note
- a checklist of facts a manager should verify

Do not invent policy, refunds, legal conclusions, or fault.

Evaluate the inbound lead using the approved qualification rules.

Inquiry:
[PASTE]

Qualification criteria:
[PASTE]

Disqualifiers or escalation conditions:
[PASTE]

Available routes:
[PASTE SALES, CONSULTATION, NURTURE, PARTNER, OR DECLINE PATHS]

Produce:
1. Extracted facts from the inquiry
2. Missing information
3. Provisional fit: strong / possible / unclear / not fit
4. Reason for that classification
5. Recommended route and owner
6. A reply that asks only the minimum necessary questions
7. CRM fields in a clean table

Do not infer budget, authority, urgency, or technical readiness unless the inquiry states it.

Review this website page as a trust and conversion system.

Business context:
- Audience: [INSERT]
- Offer: [INSERT]
- Primary action: [INSERT]
- Traffic source: [INSERT]
- Known objections: [INSERT]
- Regulatory or claim constraints: [INSERT]

Page material:
[PASTE COPY OR STRUCTURED PAGE EXPORT]

Assess:
1. Clarity in the first screen
2. Audience and problem recognition
3. Offer specificity
4. Proof and credibility
5. Risk reversal and objection handling
6. CTA visibility and sequence
7. Mobile readability
8. Missing information

Return:
- a severity-ranked issue list
- what should stay
- recommended revised hierarchy
- five highest-value copy changes
- claims that require verification

Do not invent analytics, customer behavior, or performance data.

Develop a positioning direction from the evidence provided.

Inputs:
- Company and offer: [INSERT]
- Priority audience: [INSERT]
- Problem or desired outcome: [INSERT]
- Current alternatives: [INSERT]
- Customer language or research: [INSERT]
- Demonstrated strengths: [INSERT]
- Proof: [INSERT]
- What the company does not want to claim: [INSERT]

Work in stages:
1. Separate evidence from opinion.
2. Identify common category language that would make the company sound interchangeable.
3. Produce three differentiated positioning territories.
4. For each, state the promise, reason to believe, audience fit, risk, and proof required.
5. Recommend one direction and explain the tradeoff.
6. Draft a homepage headline, subhead, and three supporting pillars.

Do not create superiority claims that are not supported.

Create a campaign brief for the following business objective.

Audience: [INSERT]
Offer: [INSERT]
Primary action: [INSERT]
Channel(s): [INSERT]
Budget range: [INSERT]
Timing: [INSERT]
Approved proof and claims: [INSERT]
Known objections: [INSERT]
Brand and compliance constraints: [INSERT]
Available assets: [INSERT]

Produce:
1. Campaign thesis
2. Audience insight and objection
3. Message hierarchy
4. Three creative concepts
5. Channel-specific asset list
6. Landing-page requirements
7. Measurement plan with leading and lagging indicators
8. Pre-launch verification checklist

State assumptions. Do not predict results or invent benchmarks.

Prepare an executive decision memo.

Decision required: [INSERT]
Decision owner: [INSERT]
Deadline: [INSERT]
Context: [INSERT]
Evidence: [INSERT]
Options considered: [INSERT]
Constraints: [INSERT]
Risks: [INSERT]
Current recommendation: [INSERT]
Unknowns: [INSERT]

First test the logic:
1. What is fact, assumption, estimate, or opinion?
2. Is the decision framed at the correct level?
3. Which tradeoffs are hidden?
4. What information is still material?

Then draft a one-page memo with:
- decision requested
- why now
- evidence
- options and tradeoffs
- recommendation
- risks and mitigations
- owner, next step, and date

Do not manufacture certainty or supporting evidence.

Turn the meeting material into an action record.

Participants and roles: [INSERT]
Agenda: [INSERT]
Transcript or notes: [INSERT]
Known project terms: [INSERT]

Rules:
- Distinguish decisions from suggestions.
- Do not assign an owner or date unless stated.
- Mark ambiguous commitments for confirmation.
- Preserve disagreement and unresolved issues.

Produce:
1. Executive summary under 120 words
2. Decisions made
3. Action table: action / owner / due date / dependency / status
4. Open questions
5. Risks or blockers
6. Items requiring confirmation
7. A follow-up email to participants

Quote or cite the source location when the material provides timestamps or sections.

Draft an SOP from the observed process material.

Process name: [INSERT]
Purpose and successful outcome: [INSERT]
Owner: [INSERT]
Roles involved: [INSERT]
Trigger: [INSERT]
Source material: [INSERT]
Systems and forms: [INSERT]
Known exceptions: [INSERT]
Approval or control points: [INSERT]
Quality standard: [INSERT]

Before drafting:
1. Identify missing steps, decision points, and contradictions.
2. Separate current practice from recommended improvement.
3. List questions that must be answered by the process owner.

Then create:
- scope and exclusions
- prerequisites
- numbered procedure
- decision table
- exception and escalation paths
- quality checks
- records retained
- ownership and revision history
- training checklist

Do not silently repair gaps. Mark them as unresolved.

Create an onboarding plan for this role.

Role: [INSERT]
Business context: [INSERT]
Expected outcomes: [INSERT]
Key responsibilities: [INSERT]
Systems and access: [INSERT]
Policies and standards: [INSERT]
Stakeholders: [INSERT]
Existing training assets: [INSERT]
Common mistakes or risks: [INSERT]
30/60/90-day expectations: [INSERT]

Produce:
1. Pre-start checklist
2. First-day agenda
3. Week-one plan
4. 30/60/90-day milestones
5. Role practice assignments
6. Manager checkpoints
7. Knowledge and performance verification
8. Ownership for each onboarding element

Distinguish required policy from suggested practice. Do not invent access, policy, or performance standards.

Build an interview scorecard for the role below.

Role: [INSERT]
Business outcomes: [INSERT]
Core responsibilities: [INSERT]
Must-have capabilities: [INSERT]
Trainable capabilities: [INSERT]
Common failure modes: [INSERT]
Team and manager context: [INSERT]
Interview stages: [INSERT]
Legal or policy constraints: [INSERT]

Create:
1. Six to eight evaluation dimensions
2. Observable evidence for strong / acceptable / weak performance
3. Structured interview questions
4. Follow-up probes
5. A work-sample exercise
6. Red flags that require evidence, not intuition
7. Scoring guidance
8. Debrief questions that reduce bias

Do not infer protected characteristics or recommend unlawful questions.

Help prepare a difficult workplace conversation.

Situation: [INSERT]
Observed behavior with dates or examples: [INSERT]
Business or team impact: [INSERT]
Prior communication: [INSERT]
Relevant policy or standard: [INSERT]
Expected change: [INSERT]
Support available: [INSERT]
Follow-up and escalation path: [INSERT]

First:
1. Separate observable facts from interpretation.
2. Identify loaded, accusatory, or vague language.
3. Flag legal, HR, safety, discrimination, retaliation, or medical issues that require escalation.

Then produce:
- a conversation opening
- a fact / impact / expectation structure
- questions that allow the employee to respond
- support and next steps
- documentation notes
- a follow-up email

Do not diagnose motives, personality, health, or intent.

Analyze the supplied sources for the following research question.

Question: [INSERT]
Decision or use: [INSERT]
Date range: [INSERT]
Inclusion criteria: [INSERT]
Source set: [PASTE OR ATTACH]
Citation format: [INSERT]

Method:
1. List each source, publisher, date, and source type.
2. Extract only claims relevant to the question.
3. Distinguish direct evidence, author interpretation, and your inference.
4. Identify agreements, contradictions, and missing evidence.
5. Assess source limitations without dismissing inconvenient evidence.

Return:
- evidence table with citations
- areas of agreement
- material disagreement
- unresolved questions
- a cautious synthesis
- what should be verified before a decision

Do not invent citations or claim access to sources not provided or retrieved.

Analyze the business data for the stated decision.

Business question: [INSERT]
Decision context: [INSERT]
Dataset or report: [ATTACH OR PASTE]
Metric definitions: [INSERT]
Time period: [INSERT]
Known data-quality issues: [INSERT]
Relevant business events: [INSERT]

Process:
1. Validate columns, units, missing values, duplicates, and time coverage.
2. Identify descriptive patterns and material outliers.
3. Separate observed relationship from causal explanation.
4. Test whether segmentation changes the conclusion.
5. State limitations and alternative explanations.

Return:
- data-quality findings
- key patterns with calculations shown
- segments or outliers worth investigating
- what cannot be concluded
- decision implications
- next analysis or data needed

Do not fabricate calculations or causal claims.

Evaluate the vendors against the approved requirements.

Decision objective: [INSERT]
Requirements and weights: [INSERT]
Vendor proposals: [PASTE OR ATTACH]
Pricing and contract terms: [INSERT]
Security, compliance, and data requirements: [INSERT]
Implementation constraints: [INSERT]
Reference information: [INSERT]

Method:
1. Normalize claims so equivalent items are compared.
2. Mark each claim as documented, vendor-stated, inferred, or unknown.
3. Score only against approved criteria.
4. Separate purchase price from implementation, migration, training, support, and exit cost.
5. Identify lock-in, dependency, and adoption risks.

Return:
- comparison matrix
- weighted score with calculation
- total-cost view
- risk register
- unresolved questions for each vendor
- recommendation with conditions

Do not treat marketing claims as verified evidence.

Build a project plan from the approved outcome and constraints.

Outcome: [INSERT]
Scope: [INSERT]
Out of scope: [INSERT]
Deadline or target window: [INSERT]
Available team and capacity: [INSERT]
Stakeholders and decision rights: [INSERT]
Known dependencies: [INSERT]
Risks: [INSERT]
Acceptance criteria: [INSERT]

First identify contradictions, missing decisions, unrealistic assumptions, and critical dependencies.

Then produce:
1. Phased work breakdown
2. Deliverables by phase
3. Owner and contributor matrix
4. Dependency map
5. Decision gates
6. Acceptance criteria
7. Risk register
8. Status-report format
9. First two weeks of actions

Do not invent resource availability or compress work to satisfy an unsupported deadline.

Review the proposed AI use case for operational and governance risk.

Use case: [INSERT]
Users: [INSERT]
Data involved: [INSERT]
Systems accessed: [INSERT]
Decision or output affected: [INSERT]
Who relies on the output: [INSERT]
Potential failure impact: [INSERT]
Applicable policy or regulation: [INSERT]
Existing controls: [INSERT]
Business owner: [INSERT]

Assess:
1. Data sensitivity and authorization
2. Accuracy and verification requirement
3. Bias, fairness, or protected-class implications
4. Human decision rights
5. Explainability and recordkeeping
6. Security and access
7. Vendor and model dependency
8. Failure, fallback, and escalation

Return:
- risk classification
- permitted / permitted with controls / specialist review / do not proceed
- required controls and owner
- test cases
- monitoring and incident response
- unresolved legal, compliance, or policy questions

Do not provide legal conclusions or approve the use case on behalf of the organization.

Perform a gap analysis between the current policy, actual practice, and stated requirements.

Policy: [PASTE]
Observed practice: [PASTE]
Applicable requirements or standards: [PASTE]
Known incidents or exceptions: [PASTE]
Policy owner: [INSERT]
Desired operating state: [INSERT]

Method:
1. Map each relevant policy requirement to observed practice and evidence.
2. Classify as aligned, partially aligned, not aligned, unclear, or not evidenced.
3. Identify conflicts, ambiguity, missing ownership, and unenforceable language.
4. Distinguish a documentation gap from an operating gap.

Return:
- gap matrix
- severity and business impact
- evidence needed
- recommended remediation sequence
- owner and decision required
- draft revision notes, not final policy language

Do not provide legal conclusions or silently change obligations.