Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers
Author: AILesson8 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
Quick answer
Change emphasis, sequence, language, and disclosure while keeping the underlying facts consistent. Provide: Source presentation and evidence, Executive and customer contexts, Disclosure and brand boundaries. Expected result: Two audience-specific presentation maps with a shared claim ledger and disclosure checks.
1
Add your context
Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.
2
Your prompt
Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt
Adapt one evidence base into an executive version and a customer version.
Source slides, evidence IDs, limitations, decisions, and wording:
[source]
Each audience's goals, knowledge, concerns, authority, relationship, time, and action:
[audiences]
Confidentiality, approved claims, legal wording, accessibility, and localization:
[boundaries]
Create a shared claim ledger first: fact, source, limitation, disclosure class, and approved wording. Neither version may change numbers, causal status, scope, date, or certainty. Distinguish changing emphasis from changing truth. Do not expose internal costs, incidents, personal data, vendor terms, roadmap commitments, or speculation unless explicitly cleared. If a customer-relevant fact cannot be disclosed, omit it or use approved abstraction; do not disguise it with a misleading claim.
For each audience propose purpose, slide sequence, keep/combine/remove decisions, assertion titles, minimal evidence, speaker context, terminology changes, likely questions, and final action. Executives should receive decision trade-offs, resources, risks, and ownership appropriate to their authority. Customers should receive relevant outcomes, current behavior, limitations, choices, and support paths without internal politics or false promises. Provide a slide mapping between versions, a difference rationale, and a final consistency/disclosure audit.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.
From input to outcome
A worked example
See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result
Actual input
Source presentation and evidence
S1: Support response median rose from 6h to 9h in Q2, Ops-22; enterprise segment 14h, but small n=18, Ops-23. S2: 31% of tickets concern setup, Tax-7. S3: proposed guided setup pilot for 50 consenting new accounts; no effect estimate yet. Internal staffing model estimates 0.5 support FTE for pilot; vendor contract ends 31 Dec. No pilot approved. Current public commitment: replies usually within one business day; no segment promise.
Executive and customer contexts
Executive committee: 8 minutes; knows support model; decides pilot budget and owner; cares customer risk, capacity, reversibility. Customers at quarterly webinar: 5 minutes; mixed account sizes; want current support expectations and easier setup; may ask when guided setup launches; desired action is use current setup guide and volunteer interest in research, not consent to a live pilot.
Disclosure and brand boundaries
Ops-22 aggregate and 31% setup share may be public after saying Q2; enterprise n and segment result confidential; FTE and vendor end date confidential. Approved wording: 'We are exploring ways to make setup easier.' Do not promise pilot or faster response. Provide text alternatives to charts; no customer names.
Example output
Shared ledger: Q2 median 6h→9h (Ops-22, public aggregate, descriptive); 31% setup tickets (Tax-7, public with Q2 context); enterprise 14h/n=18 (Ops-23, confidential and uncertain); 50-account pilot, 0.5 FTE, vendor date (proposal/internal, not public); one-business-day wording is the only current service expectation. No evidence supports guided setup effectiveness.
Executive version: 1 “Q2 response time worsened, with setup a major demand source” using Ops-22/Tax-7; 2 confidential segment signal and its small-sample limit; 3 causal/problem hypotheses; 4 options—do nothing, improve guide, or design 50-account pilot; 5 capacity/vendor constraints; 6 measures and stop rules; 7 decision: fund design/pilot only if gates met and assign owner. Include 0.5 FTE and 31 Dec because this audience decides resources.
Customer version: 1 “Our current support expectation remains one business day”; 2 “Setup generated 31% of Q2 questions” with accessible text and no customer inference; 3 current guide and support path; 4 approved statement “We are exploring ways to make setup easier”; 5 invitation to express research interest plus privacy explanation supplied by the research process. Omit enterprise data, staffing, vendor date, option politics, and the unapproved 50-account design. If asked when it launches: “No launch is approved or scheduled; we are exploring options and will communicate any confirmed change.”
Mapping: executive 1→customer 1-2; executive 3→customer 3-4 at public abstraction; executive 2/5/6/7 have no customer slide due confidentiality/authority. Audit: both retain Q2, 9h current median, 31%, descriptive status, and no promised effect. Customer action does not imply pilot consent; executive action matches budget authority.
Why this works
1
A shared claim ledger lets the story change for audience relevance without allowing the facts to drift
2
Explicit disclosure classes prevent useful adaptation from becoming accidental leakage or misleading omission
Check the result
Do both versions preserve identical numbers, limitations, dates, and causal status
Is every audience-specific removal or addition explained by relevance or disclosure rules
Does each final request match the audience's actual authority and relationship
Use it with confidence
Frequently asked questions
Practical answers about when to use this recipe, what to provide, and where human review still matters
What should I prepare before using “Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers”?
For “Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers,” prepare Source presentation and evidence, Executive and customer contexts, and Disclosure and brand boundaries. 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 “Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—Two audience-specific presentation maps with a shared claim ledger and disclosure checks—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 “Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers”?
The published test record for “Adapt the same presentation for executives or customers” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. 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.
ChatGPT