Compare options with explicit criteria

작성자: AILesson5 분 소요테스트::ChatGPTClaudeGemini검토일: 2026-08-27

빠른 답변

Make trade-offs visible without letting AI pretend to own the decision. 제공할 내용: Decision, Options, Criteria and priorities. 예상 결과: A weighted comparison, sensitivity check, and recommendation with caveats.

맥락 추가

텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.

DecisionOptionsCriteria and priorities

프롬프트

채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다

Help me compare options for this decision:
[decision]

Options and known facts:
[options]

Criteria and priorities:
[criteria]

First identify missing decision-critical facts. Then create a comparison table with a transparent 1–5 score for each criterion and explain every score using only the information provided. Do not disguise assumptions as facts.

Show how the recommendation changes if the two most important criteria receive twice the weight. End with:
- Best-supported option
- Main trade-off
- What could reverse the recommendation
- Decision that must remain with the human owner

Playground에서 사용해 보기

기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.

입력에서 결과까지

적용 예시

구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요

실제 입력

Decision: Choose how a six-person product team should run a two-day planning retreat for 6–7 November.
Options: Option A — Local coworking room: £720 total, 25-minute average commute, available both days, catering not included, reliable Wi-Fi confirmed. Option B — Countryside venue: £1,460 total including lunch, about 90 minutes away by train, available both days, reliable Wi-Fi confirmed, overnight rooms are not included. Option C — Fully remote: no venue or travel cost, everyone already has the required equipment, but the team reports that its last remote planning day had frequent interruptions.
Criteria and priorities: Budget fit and focused working conditions are the top priorities. Travel burden and logistical simplicity are secondary. Use equal weights first, then double the weight of budget fit and focused working conditions. The available budget is £1,500.

예시 출력

Missing decision-critical facts

Noise and privacy at the coworking room; whether countryside rail fare is included; remote interruption controls; accessibility needs; cancellation terms; and whether the 90-minute journey is one way. These gaps limit confidence.

Equal-weight comparison

Option	Budget fit	Focus	Travel	Simplicity	Total /20
A. Coworking	4	4	4	3	15
B. Countryside	3	4	2	2	11
C. Remote	5	2	5	5	17

Rationale: A is well below budget, has a short commute and confirmed Wi-Fi; catering adds coordination, while focus is plausible but not verified. B fits the budget by only £40, provides a separate venue and lunch, but has the greatest travel and unresolved transport or accommodation logistics. C has no stated cost or travel and uses existing equipment, but the prior remote day provides direct evidence of interruption risk.

Priority-weight sensitivity

Doubling budget and focus gives totals out of 30: A = 23, B = 18, C = 24. C remains narrowly ahead, but its one-point lead makes the result fragile. If remote focus falls to 1, A leads; credible interruption controls would strengthen C.

Best-supported option: C, fully remote, by a narrow numerical margin.
Main trade-off: Maximum savings and simplicity versus weaker evidence for focused work.
What could reverse it: Verified coworking quiet, effective remote interruption controls, or additional countryside travel costs.
Human-owner decision: Decide whether the documented focus risk is acceptable or paying £720 for Option A is justified.

효과가 있는 이유

1
It forces the scoring rationale and missing evidence into view.
2
A sensitivity check reveals whether the recommendation is robust or fragile.

결과 확인

Can every score be traced to a supplied fact?
Does the recommendation change under reasonable weighting?

안심하고 사용하세요

자주 묻는 질문

이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변

What should I prepare before using “Compare options with explicit criteria”?

For “Compare options with explicit criteria,” prepare Decision, Options, and Criteria and priorities. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.

When is the “Compare options with explicit criteria” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A weighted comparison, sensitivity check, and recommendation with caveats—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.

Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Compare options with explicit criteria”?

The published test record for “Compare options with explicit criteria” lists ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini as of 2026-08-27. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.

더 많은 탐색 방법