Author: AILesson9 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
Quick answer
Compare candidate trips on traveler-defined needs, dated evidence, uncertainty, total cost, access, and trade-offs. Provide: Traveler requirements, Destination options and evidence, Decision criteria and method. Expected result: A source-aware destination comparison with disqualifiers, sensitivity, and a verification plan.
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
Compare the destinations using traveler-defined gates and dated evidence, not generic popularity.
Origin, dates, people, budget, documents, pace, interests, access/health needs, risks, and exclusions:
[travelers]
Candidate destinations and dated official evidence for entry, transport, conditions, closures, advisories, costs, and accessibility:
[options]
Must-pass gates, weighted preferences, cost basis, uncertainty, decision owner, and verification deadline:
[criteria]
Normalize each option to the same trip length, traveler count, currency/date, included costs, door-to-door time, and evidence cutoff. Apply hard gates before scoring. Separate current authoritative fact, historical climate pattern, estimate, traveler preference, anecdote, and unknown. Do not invent prices, visa eligibility, safety, weather, schedules, accessibility, or availability. Compare total cost range, travel friction, realistic usable time, interest fit, pace, accessibility, season/closure exposure, cancellation flexibility, and contingency. Show score sensitivity to weights and unknowns rather than hiding uncertainty in a precise total. Return evidence matrix with source/check date, disqualifiers, comparable cost ledger, trade-offs, contradictions, provisional ranking or no-decision, what would change it, and a sequenced verification plan before booking.
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
Traveler requirements
Two adults from Shanghai, 5 nights between 10–20 Feb 2027, CNY 14,000 excluding passports. One traveler avoids continuous stairs and needs a hotel near rail; both want crafts, historic streets, and one nature half-day. No driving. Hard gates: official entry path confirmed, ≤8 hours planned door-to-door each way, total within budget with 15% reserve, workable public transport. Avoid beach holiday and nightlife.
Destination options and evidence
Candidates Kyoto, Seoul, Taipei. Only supplied evidence: government entry pages saved 28 Aug 2026 but all say rules may change; carrier schedule screenshots for Feb are absent; climate normals from national agencies show coldest-month ranges but are not forecasts; official transit maps current Aug 2026; Kyoto site notes one target garden has stair-free route but availability must be confirmed; Seoul craft museum closes Mondays per official page checked 28 Aug; Taipei rail accessibility page current Jul 2026. No flight, hotel, attraction price, advisories, or exact operating calendar supplied.
Decision criteria and method
Gates above. Preferences: crafts/history 30, low walking friction 25, usable time 20, cost 15, weather resilience 10. Costs must include flights, hotel near rail, local transport, food, attractions, insurance, and reserve. Unknown fails hard gates only when the gate requires confirmation; otherwise remains uncertainty. Travelers decide by 15 Oct.
Example output
No defensible ranking yet. All three fail the confirmation state of the entry, ≤8-hour door-to-door, and budget gates because current February transport and comparable costs are absent; this is not evidence that any destination is unsuitable. Climate normals describe typical ranges, not trip weather.
Evidence matrix: Kyoto has relevant craft/history fit and one potential stair-free garden route, but that route, hotel-to-site friction, February closures, and transport remain unverified. Seoul has relevant craft potential; the Monday closure matters only after exact trip dates are chosen. Taipei has a current rail-accessibility source, but station-to-hotel/site paths and all costs remain unknown. None has supplied current advisory or full accessibility evidence. Weighted scoring now would mostly score assumptions.
Verification order before 15 Oct: recheck official entry sources for the travelers' passports; obtain bookable carrier schedules and compute airport-to-hotel door-to-door time; price the same five-night refundable basket for two with every category and 15% reserve; verify hotel and target-site step-free routes directly; place exact weekdays against closures; then compare itinerary usable hours and bad-weather alternatives. If all pass, test weight sensitivity: a small craft-fit advantage cannot override the access gate, while a material transport-time difference may change usable-time ranking. Preserve “no decision” until the common ledger is complete.
Why this works
1
Hard gates protect non-negotiable traveler needs before subjective scoring begins.
2
Common cost and time bases prevent cheap-looking options from hiding transfers or excluded expenses.
Check the result
Are all options compared for the same travelers, dates, duration, currency, inclusions, and evidence cutoff?
Do hard gates precede preferences, and are current facts separated from patterns, estimates, and unknowns?
Does sensitivity analysis show which evidence or weight could change the choice?
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 “Compare destinations with explicit criteria”?
For “Compare destinations with explicit criteria,” prepare Traveler requirements, Destination options and evidence, and Decision criteria and method. 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 destinations with explicit criteria” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A source-aware destination comparison with disqualifiers, sensitivity, and a verification plan—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 destinations with explicit criteria”?
The published test record for “Compare destinations with explicit criteria” 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