Think & decide

Compare options with explicit criteria

Make trade-offs visible without letting AI pretend to own the decision

5 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.

DecisionOptionsCriteria and priorities

Your prompt

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

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

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: 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.

Example output

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.