Organize information

Extract conclusions and open questions from an email thread

Reconstruct the latest state without treating proposals, silence, or superseded replies as agreement

6 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28

Add your context

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

Complete email threadReader and reply responsibilityDecision and scope rules

Your prompt

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

Analyze the complete email thread and extract its current state.

Thread:
[thread]

Reader and reply responsibility:
[perspective]

Decision, scope, cutoff, and detail rules:
[rules]

Read messages chronologically while accounting for quoted older text. Do not treat a proposal, assumption, unanswered question, or silence as agreement. When later messages revise earlier ones, preserve the change and identify the current position. Return: concise context; confirmed decisions with who confirmed and when; superseded positions; actions with explicit owner and due date or Not specified; unanswered questions grouped by who should answer; contradictions; and a reply checklist for the responsible person. Cite sender and timestamp for each item. Do not infer authority or assign ownership from who merely mentioned a task.

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

Complete email thread: 8 Apr 09:10, Ana: Could we launch on 6 May? Please confirm whether Security can review by 25 April and whether Training needs two weeks. 8 Apr 11:30, Ben: Training needs ten working days after final materials. I suggest 13 May instead. 9 Apr 08:45, Chen: Security can complete review by 29 April, not 25 April. Who owns the final materials? 9 Apr 15:20, Ana: Agreed: target 13 May, subject to Security approval. I will send final materials to Ben by 26 April. Chen, please confirm whether 29 April includes remediation. 10 Apr 10:00, Chen: 29 April covers review only; remediation timing depends on findings.
Reader and reply responsibility: Ana needs a current-state summary and a checklist for her next reply.
Decision and scope rules: Cutoff 10 April 10:00. A decision requires explicit agreed/confirmed language. Cover launch, Security, Training, materials, and unanswered questions.

Example output

Current state: the target launch is 13 May, conditional on Security approval [Ana, 9 Apr 15:20]. The earlier 6 May date is superseded. Security review is due 29 April; remediation is excluded and remains dependent on findings [Chen, 10 Apr 10:00]. Training needs ten working days after final materials [Ben, 8 Apr 11:30].

Confirmed actions: Ana will send final materials to Ben by 26 April [Ana, 9 Apr 15:20]. Security will complete review by 29 April [Chen, 9 Apr 08:45], but the named individual owner is not specified.

Open questions: no remediation estimate can be given before findings; the thread does not say who decides whether any findings block launch; no one explicitly confirms that ten working days from 26 April fits 13 May. Reply checklist for Ana: acknowledge review/remediation distinction, ask who owns remediation and launch approval, ask Ben to confirm training timing, and avoid presenting 13 May as unconditional.

Why this works

1
Chronological reconstruction separates the latest state from repeated quoted history.
2
Explicit confirmation criteria prevent silence and suggestions from becoming decisions.