Identify disagreements and open questions in meeting notes
Surface competing claims, preferences, assumptions, and unresolved decisions without manufacturing conflict
6 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
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
Identify disagreements and open questions in the meeting record.
Notes or transcript:
[notes]
Purpose, scope, and cutoff:
[purpose]
Authority, evidence standards, final decisions, and follow-up rules:
[resolution]
Use only the record. Distinguish direct disagreement, different preferences, different factual claims, different assumptions, implementation tension, requests for clarification, and silence. Do not infer conflict from different roles or treat lack of response as consent. For each disagreement show the positions neutrally, speaker evidence, underlying criterion or assumption when explicit, material consequence, current status, and what evidence or authority could resolve it. List every consequential open question with best-positioned respondent, decision owner if stated, dependency, and deadline or Not set. Identify apparent disagreements already resolved and preserve dissent from final decisions without reopening them automatically.
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
Meeting notes or transcript
14:02 Lena: We should keep the free trial at 14 days; last quarter 68% of conversions happened by day 10. 14:05 Pavel: I prefer 30 days because enterprise setup takes at least three weeks. Lena: That 68% figure excludes enterprise accounts. 14:09 Mei: Our dashboard says 61%, but I need to check its filter. 14:12 Director: For the September experiment, use 21 days for enterprise and keep 14 for self-serve. This does not set permanent policy. Pavel: I still think enterprise needs 30 days, but I can support testing 21. 14:15 Open: who defines enterprise eligibility, sample size, and stopping criteria? Mei will verify conversion figures by Friday.
Meeting purpose and cutoff
Map trial-length disagreements and open experiment-design questions through 14:15.
Resolution rules
The director owns the experiment decision. Verified dashboard definitions are required for numerical claims. The September split is final for the experiment but permanent policy remains open.
Example output
Disagreement D1—type: preference plus scope assumption. Lena supports 14 days using a 68% by-day-10 claim that excludes enterprise [14:02/14:05]. Pavel prefers 30 days because enterprise setup takes at least three weeks [14:05]. Consequence: enterprise users may have insufficient setup time versus a longer trial's cost/exposure, which the notes do not quantify. Status: resolved only for the September experiment by the director's 21-day enterprise and 14-day self-serve decision [14:12]. Pavel's 30-day preference remains recorded but he supports the test; this is not continuing resistance. Permanent policy remains open.
Factual discrepancy D2: Lena cites 68% with an enterprise exclusion; Mei's dashboard shows 61% with an unchecked filter. Resolution evidence: definitions, denominator, segment, and period from Mei's Friday verification.
Open questions: enterprise eligibility definition—respondent/owner not stated; sample size—not stated; stopping criteria—not stated; all deadlines not set. Mei owns verifying conversion figures by Friday. Follow-up should assign an experiment-design decision owner and dates, then use verified segment definitions rather than averaging 61% and 68%.
Why this works
1
Typed disagreement categories prevent preference differences from being exaggerated into factual conflict.
2
Resolution evidence and authority turn disagreement mapping into practical follow-up.
Check the result
Is every position represented neutrally with explicit speaker evidence?
Are preference, fact, assumption, clarification, and silence distinguished?
Are final decisions and unresolved questions labeled separately?
ChatGPT