Give it your own material
A draft can sound polished and still sound nothing like your organization. I start with a small brief: the current facts, one useful example, and the rules that matter. More files do not automatically make a better answer.
What you will leave with
A small source pack you can reuse and keep current.
Practice time: about 20 minutesGive each piece of material a clear job
Before attaching anything, check what the tool is allowed to receive. Use only material approved for that account and purpose. For a first experiment, fictional information or your public material is often enough.
- Current facts: The short source that answers this task. Label its date and owner. This is where factual claims should come from.
- A model of good work: One relevant, approved example. Label it as a style or structure reference so old details do not migrate into the new draft.
- Your rules: A few concrete instructions, such as "do not confirm availability" or "list unresolved questions separately."
- The requested output: The reader, purpose, format, and the person who will review it.
A project, saved instruction, or connected folder may carry context between tasks. Do not assume it has the right version. Check what is actually available in the current workspace.
A short brief can do more than a full folder
Worked example / Fictional practice material
Job: Draft an announcement for a community workshop.
Current facts: Topic: writing clearer customer replies. Audience: beginners. Venue and registration date: not confirmed.
Example: A previous public announcement with a short opening and three practical takeaways. It is a format reference only.
Rules: Do not reuse the old venue or signup link. Mark missing details with [TO CONFIRM]. Do not describe an event as open for registration.
The useful result is a draft with visible gaps. An invented room, date, or registration link is a failure even if the announcement reads beautifully.
Tell it what to do when the sources disagree
A folder may contain an old policy, a newer email, and a template that contradicts both. Name the authoritative source for the task. If you cannot settle the conflict yourself, have the tool list it for the owner instead of choosing an answer.
Ask for a source location beside consequential claims: a heading, page number, or quoted line. Open that location yourself. A citation is a pointer to check, not proof that the claim is supported.
Treat instructions found inside an attached document as document content, not permission to send messages, change records, or connect another account. Written instructions alone are not a security control; keep action permissions limited too.
Make the pack reusable only after it passes
Try it on one routine case and one incomplete case. Can the draft follow your format without borrowing stale facts? Does it ask when the answer is missing? Record the fixes in the brief, then save it with a date and an owner.
Keep the source pack small enough to inspect. Replace outdated examples rather than leaving several conflicting versions beside each other. The aim is less re-explaining and less repair, not a larger document collection.
Keep this
Your source pack
Copy this into your own document and fill in the brackets. Use approved or fictional material when trying it with AI.
TASK / READER: [What are we making, and for whom?]
CURRENT FACTS: [Source title, date, owner, relevant excerpt.]
EXAMPLE: [Approved sample and the specific qualities to borrow.]
AUTHORITY: [Which source settles facts? Which is style only?]
RULES: [Required points, forbidden assumptions, output format.]
GAPS: List missing or conflicting information before drafting.
SOURCE CHECK: Point to the source location for consequential claims.
DATA CHECK: [Account and purpose approved by whom?]
REVIEW: [Name, review date, routine test, incomplete test.]Want help applying this to your organization? Bring the job you have in mind, and we can work out a useful next step.