Join for free

Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision

Author: AILesson9 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28

Quick answer

Turn different household needs, constraints, evidence, and decision rights into fair criteria before comparing options. Provide: Decision and options, Household needs and perspectives, Decision process and evidence rules. Expected result: A shared decision contract with gates, criteria, evidence scales, option table, trade-offs, dissent, trial plan, and review trigger.

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

Build a fair comparison framework for the supplied shared family decision.

Decision and options:
[decision]

People, needs, and perspectives:
[people]

Process and evidence rules:
[process]

Separate verified hard constraints, safety or rights gates, needs, preferences, fears, assumptions, and unknowns. Give every affected person an age-appropriate way to contribute without making children responsible for adult obligations or treating income, volume, or seniority as automatic authority. For each criterion define the question, whose need it represents, evidence source, anchored scale, direction, weight only if agreed, missing-data treatment, and double-counting risk. Test every option, including status quo, against the same gates and criteria. Do not invent costs, schedules, motives, consent, medical needs, laws, availability, or consensus. Keep minority impact, care workload, privacy, accessibility, reversibility, implementation effort, recurring burden, worst-case harm, and exit cost visible. Use scores only as a discussion aid; show trade-offs, dissent, sensitivity, conditions, and decisions that require authorized adults. When uncertainty is material and the choice is reversible, propose a bounded trial with success, stop, and review rules.
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

Decision and options
Two adults and children age 8 and 13 must decide how to handle after-school time from October through December: O1 paid program three days/week; O2 one adult reduces work hours two afternoons; O3 grandparent care two afternoons plus one paid-program day; O4 keep current ad-hoc pickups. Adult agreement is required for contracts, work changes, and spending. Monthly ceiling CNY 2,400. School ends 16:00; an adult-approved arrangement must cover until 18:30. Decision by 10 September. Paid program fee quoted 2,100/month, refundable/cancellation terms and available places unconfirmed. Work-hour income effect estimated 2,800/month and employer approval unknown. Grandparent offer is voluntary and can be withdrawn; transport time 35 minutes each way.
Household needs and perspectives
Adult A has fixed calls Tue/Thu 16:00–18:00 and values predictable work. Adult B has flexible hours but already handles most school notices and meal planning; does not want all coordination silently added. Grandparent can help Mon/Wed, prefers no driving after dark, and needs a seated rest after travel; these are stated needs, not diagnoses. Child 13 wants time for music Tuesday and some independent time; can travel home on an approved route but is not responsible for Child 8. Child 8 wants to stay with a friend in the program and needs a named adult pickup. Both children may express experience and preference; adults retain safety, contract, employment, and budget decisions. No option's route safety has been verified.
Decision process and evidence rules
Gates: coverage 16:00–18:30, verified safe transport/pickup, monthly out-of-pocket at most 2,400, adult consent, and no assigning Child 13 care of Child 8. Comparative criteria, equal weights unless family changes them: predictability, child fit, adult coordination/care load, grandparent burden, cost, flexibility/reversibility. Score 1 poor, 3 workable with conditions, 5 strong; unknown is unscored, not neutral. Verify program places/terms, employer approval, routes, and complete weekly coverage. A four-week trial is allowed only without a long contract. Review Sunday evening with each child speaking first about experience.

Example output

Shared decision contract

Verified gates: every school day must cover 16:00–18:30; transport and named pickup must be verified; out-of-pocket spending ≤2,400/month; both adults consent to contracts/work changes; Child 13 is never assigned responsibility for Child 8. Any option failing a gate is unavailable regardless of score.

Criteria use 1/3/5 anchors: predictability—frequent improvisation / conditional weekly plan / stable named coverage; child fit—conflicts with stated needs / mixed and adjustable / supports both children's stated needs; adult load—unowned or concentrated / explicit but uneven / owned with backup; grandparent burden—conflicts with stated boundary / feasible with conditions / low burden; cost—over ceiling / within ceiling with uncertainty / verified comfortably within; reversibility—high exit cost / conditional / easy exit. Unknowns remain blank. Equal weights are provisional and do not average away gates.

Option assessment: O1 cannot yet pass because places, terms, transport, pickup, and coverage for non-program days are unknown. Quoted cost passes the ceiling provisionally. It may support Child 8's friend preference but Tuesday could conflict with Child 13's music depending on days. O2 is over the stated ceiling if income effect is treated as household cost and employer approval is unknown; it also risks concentrating load. O3 has potential budget fit but transport, darkness timing, the grandparent's withdrawal fallback, program day, and remaining coverage are unresolved. O4 fails predictability and has no verified full coverage. No option is currently decision-ready.

Required evidence by 7 September: program places, days, pickup rules, cancellation and four-week trial terms; employer decision and exact hours/income effect; verified routes and sunset-compatible grandparent transport; a full Monday–Friday owner/backup grid for O1 and O3; Adult B coordination tasks made explicit.

A trial recommendation is conditional, not a choice: if O1 offers a no-long-contract four-week trial, verified routes, named pickups, complete coverage, and suitable days within 2,400, test it for four weeks. Otherwise compare a fully specified O3; do not assume grandparent availability. Success: all pickups covered, children report workable experience, music remains possible, adult coordination stays within agreed ownership, and no boundary breach. Stop for unsafe/uncovered transport, unwanted long commitment, grandparent withdrawal without backup, or either adult refusing the arrangement. Record each person's view; silence is not consensus.

Why this works

  1. 1

    Separating gates from preferences prevents an average score from trading away safety, rights, or an essential need

  2. 2

    Need ownership and dissent records make compromise inspectable rather than equating silence with agreement

Check the result

  • Are hard constraints, rights and safety gates, needs, preferences, assumptions, and unknowns clearly distinguished?

  • Does every affected person have a safe contribution route without being assigned inappropriate authority or responsibility?

  • Are status quo, minority harms, care workload, reversibility, sensitivity, dissent, and review conditions visible beyond scores?

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 “Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision”?

For “Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision,” prepare Decision and options, Household needs and perspectives, and Decision process and evidence rules. 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 “Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A shared decision contract with gates, criteria, evidence scales, option table, trade-offs, dissent, trial plan, and review trigger—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 “Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision”?

The published test record for “Build comparison criteria for a shared family decision” 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.

More ways to explore

Where this recipe fits

Text promptsFamily life & personal administrationFor managers

Keep the work moving