Organize information

Analyze user feedback without losing evidence

Group themes while keeping quotes, counts, and uncertainty attached

6 min setupTested with:ChatGPTClaudeGeminiReviewed: 2026-08-27

Add your context

Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.

Feedback entriesAnalysis question

Your prompt

Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt

Analyze the numbered feedback entries below to answer this question:
[question]

Feedback:
[feedback]

Rules:
- Preserve the entry number for every piece of evidence.
- Do not infer prevalence beyond this sample.
- Separate direct observation, interpretation, and hypothesis.
- Do not merge comments with meaningfully different causes.

Produce:
1. A coding table with entry number, code, sentiment, and evidence excerpt
2. Themes with supporting entry numbers and counts
3. Contradictions and outliers
4. Product implications labeled by confidence
5. Claims this dataset cannot support
6. The next evidence we should collect

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

Feedback entries: 1. “The reminders are useful, but getting one for every comment is exhausting. I would rather receive a daily digest.” 2. “Keep the immediate alerts for failed imports. One saved me from presenting outdated numbers to a client.” 3. “Push notifications sometimes arrive about 20 minutes late on my phone.” 4. “The email summary is helpful, although the same task can appear twice.” 5. “I turned off all notifications after a busy project generated dozens of comment alerts.” 6. “I need notification settings per project. The current all-or-nothing switch is too coarse.”
Analysis question: What notification changes should the product team prioritize before the next beta?

Example output

1. Coding table

Entry	Code	Sentiment	Evidence
1	Comment overload; digest preference	Mixed	“one for every comment is exhausting”
2	Critical alerts create value	Positive	“saved me from presenting outdated numbers”
3	Mobile delivery delay	Negative	“about 20 minutes late”
4	Useful summary; duplicate content	Mixed	“same task can appear twice”
5	Alert volume causes opt-out	Negative	“turned off all notifications”
6	Missing project controls	Negative	“all-or-nothing switch”

2. Themes

Control and alert volume: entries 1, 5, 6 (3 entries).
Delivery quality: entries 3, 4 (2). Delay and duplication should remain separate causes.
Value of selective immediacy: entry 2 (1). A failed-import alert was useful.

Counts describe only these six entries, not the wider user base.

3. Contradictions and outliers

Entry 1 prefers a digest for comments, while entry 2 values immediate failed-import alerts. These needs are compatible if urgency varies by event type. Entry 3 is the only delivery-delay report.

4. Product implications

High confidence within this sample: offer controls by project or event type.
Medium: investigate duplicate summaries and mobile delays separately.
Medium: preserve immediate critical alerts while testing digests for routine activity.

5. Unsupported claims

The sample cannot establish prevalence, platform-wide reliability, whether digests reduce opt-outs, or which change improves retention.

6. Next evidence

Collect event-level delivery logs, settings and opt-out behavior, then test digest frequency and per-project controls with a larger, segmented beta sample.