Last verified 23 September 2026. Claude's free plan lets you attach files: click + at the lower left of the message box, or drag it in. ChatGPT's free plan works too. If a button moves, the method stays the same. Details for experts at the end of this book.

The idea in one page

A chatbot's answer can only be as specific as your request. Four moves take the guessing out, in this order:

Move 4 is the one people skip, and it prevents the worst errors. A chatbot fills gaps with plausible text (T01-L01 · From Idea to Working Result: The Four-Quadrant Method, fact 1). "Not stated" gives it something honest to write instead.

Then improve it, one change at a time. Stay in the same chat. The chatbot sees the earlier messages in the conversation, so a follow-up like "keep the facts, make it three bullets" works without repeating everything. Change one thing per follow-up. If you change the reader, the length and the format at once and the answer gets better, you won't know why, and you can't repeat it next week. Label the answers V1, V2, V3 (version 1, 2, 3) and write one line under each: what you changed and what it did. Start a new chat only when the task or the material changes.

Use the right kind of tool. One assistant doesn't do every job equally well. For a first pick:

A search tool gives you sources, not finished text. A drafting tool gives you text, not current facts. T16-L01 · Pick the Right Tool for One Task by Trying It goes deeper into choosing and testing a tool.

Worked example: rough notes to a finished text

Both versions take the same path through the quadrants. Follow the one closer to your work. The answers shown are typical examples written for this book.

Lab: bench notes to a methods paragraph

Structure it. "I need a methods paragraph for our internal report, written from my bench notes. The reader is a new lab member who may repeat the assay. A useful result is accurate and complete, and claims nothing the notes don't say."

Understand it. She pastes the notes with the request she'd normally type: "Write this up as a methods paragraph." V1 comes back:

Four samples were prepared and measured under standard conditions. Two readings were taken per sample and averaged to ensure reliable results. Samples with inconsistent readings were reviewed.

It reads well, and three things are wrong. "Standard conditions" is invented. The 5% rule has become "inconsistent". The missing temperature has vanished. The chatbot wasn't careless: she never said who the paragraph was for or that it had to stick to the notes. Seeing V1 changes her problem statement. The hard part was never the wording. It's keeping every number and every gap visible. Back to Structure it: "…and anything missing stays visibly missing."

Choose tools. A chat assistant is the right size. The material is half a page, she can check every line, and the notes hold no personal data. A search tool would be wrong, because nothing needs looking up. She stays in the same chat so she can compare versions.

Build it. Three follow-ups, one change each.

Revision 1, reader and length: "Rewrite this for a new lab member who may repeat the assay, 40 to 60 words." It now speaks to the right reader. "Standard conditions" is still there. Naming the reader and the length changes the tone and the size; it doesn't stop the chatbot from adding facts.

Revision 2, exclusions: "Keep that. Use only my notes. If a detail is missing, write not stated."

Mix each of the four samples (S-01 to S-04) for 30 seconds. Record two readings per sample and report the mean. If the two readings differ by more than 5%, mark the result "review needed". Temperature: not stated.

The invented condition is gone and the exact threshold is back.

Revision 3, example: "Keep that. Use this form: Preparation: … / Measurement: … / Exception: … / Missing: …" The facts stay the same, and she can now check the result line by line.

She checks each line against the notes, then asks a colleague for the temperature. No prompt could have supplied that fact. Her record says: Revision 2 fixed it. "Use only my notes, write not stated" removed the invented condition.

Company: call notes to a client update

Structure it. "The client wants a short update after today's call. A useful result is three accurate lines they can read in a minute, ending with the one decision they need to make."

Understand it. He types "Create a polished client update." V1 says the navigation is "complete", that the open checks "will be finished before delivery", and recommends "the stronger colour direction". Three problems: draft became complete, a delivery promise appeared, and the chatbot made the client's choice for them with no information about either option. "Polished" told it nothing about what it was allowed to say. Back to Structure it: "…and it promises nothing that isn't agreed."

Choose tools. Same as the lab: one chat, notes pasted in. The notes name a project but no people or prices, and he uses the assistant his company approved. On a personal account he'd replace the project name first.

Build it. Revision 1, reader and length: "Three bullets for the client, under 60 words." The length is right; the invented promise stays. Revision 2, exclusions: "Use only my notes. No dates, promises or recommendations that aren't in them. Write not agreed yet where that applies." The upgrade, the promise and the recommendation disappear. Revision 3, example: "Use this form: Done: … / Open: … / Your decision: …" The client's decision is now the last line, where they'll see it.

He checks each bullet against the notes and sends the update himself. The chatbot wrote text. It didn't send anything, and it didn't finish the open checks.

In both cases the first answer was worth having for what it showed: which instruction was missing. And in both, the change that mattered was move 4. The format made the result easier to use, but only the exclusion made it true.

What goes wrong

Describing the document instead of giving it. Symptom: "my notes from Tuesday" gets an answer about typical Tuesday meetings. Fix: paste or attach the text. The chatbot can't see a file you only mention.

"Summarise" with no reader. Symptom: the wrong length, the wrong vocabulary, the wrong details. Fix: name who will read it and what they'll do next.

Rewriting the whole request every time. Symptom: V4 is better than V1 and you can't say why. Fix: go back to the last answer you liked, change one thing, and write down what it did.

Searching with a drafting tool, or drafting with a search tool. Symptom: a chatbot's "current" figure that nobody can trace, or a search summary pasted into a report as finished text. Fix: find sources with a search tool and open them; draft from material you have with a drafting tool.

Accepting the first fluent answer. Symptom: a well-written paragraph with one invented condition leaves your desk. Fix: check every name, number and date against your material before you use it (T01-L02 · Check AI Output Before Your Team Relies on It).

Believing it did something. Symptom: "I've sent the update" or "saved to your file". Fix: a chat assistant writes text. You copy it, save it and send it.

Do it yourself (25 minutes)

1. Structure it (4 min). Take your notes. Write one sentence: who will read the result, what they'll do with it, and what a useful result looks like. Copy the notes, unchanged, into your record file.
2. Understand it (6 min). Open a new chat. Paste the notes with the short request you'd normally type. Save the answer as V1. Mark every sentence the notes don't support and every gap that disappeared. If you learned what really matters, rewrite your sentence from step 1.
3. Choose tools (2 min). Check that you're in a drafting tool, not a search tool, and that you're allowed to paste these notes into it: your organisation's rules come first, and without rules, leave out personal data, customer details and unpublished results (T01-L01 · From Idea to Working Result: The Four-Quadrant Method, fact 4).
4. Build it (13 min). In the same chat, send up to three follow-ups, one change each: reader and length, exclusions, example. Save the answers as V2, V3 and V4, with one line under each saying what changed. Stop when the answer is ready to use, and check it against the notes one last time.

Exit check

What you hand in: a before/after pair from your own notes: V1, your final version, and the single follow-up that fixed it, word for word.

It passes when a colleague can read the two versions side by side, see the improvement, and find nothing in the final version that isn't in your notes.

Rule to remember

Attach the thing. Then say who it is for.

Details for experts

Checked on 23 September 2026. You don't need this to follow the book; it's for setting things up or answering a colleague.

Further reading and tools

Next books

• T03-L01 · Write a Prompt You Can Reuse: turn a request that works into a prompt you run every week.
• T01-L02 · Check AI Output Before Your Team Relies on It: check a result quickly before it leaves your desk.
• T04-L01 · Ask Your Own Documents and Check Every Citation: questions across many files, with every citation checked.
• T16-L01 · Pick the Right Tool for One Task by Trying It: which assistant for which job, tested against how you work today.
• T02-L02 · Set Up Projects a Colleague Can Pick Up: files, projects and memory, so you stop pasting the same background.

Tools

• Claude: Taught. The default pick for this book.
• ChatGPT, Gemini: Catalogued. Either works for the exercise.
• Perplexity: Catalogued. For finding sources, not for drafting.