Build a neutral question path that uncovers workflow, impact, evidence, alternatives, and decision process
8 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
Prepare a neutral, time-boxed discovery question guide from the supplied context.
Verified facts, participants, trigger, interactions, stated needs, unknowns, and sensitivities:
[context]
Capabilities, limits, fit and exclusion criteria, evidence, implementation, and price context:
[offer]
Duration, stage, goal, roles, next decision, tone, recording, and prohibited topics:
[meeting]
Separate confirmed facts from hypotheses. Sequence a small number of open questions through reason for meeting, current workflow, concrete recent example, frequency and consequence, current alternatives, desired outcome and evidence, stakeholders and decision process, constraints and risks, and mutually chosen next step. Do not assume pain, urgency, budget, authority, dissatisfaction, or purchase intent. Avoid leading, compound, manipulative, or interrogative wording. For each primary question state purpose, evidence to capture, neutral follow-ups, red flags, and skip logic. Include permission before sensitive commercial or operational questions and do not solicit unnecessary personal data. Fit all questions and listening time into the duration. Add a note-taking schema that distinguishes direct statement, observed example, inference, commitment, and unknown. End with disqualification and no-next-step conditions.
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
Customer and meeting context
20-minute first call with Operations Director and Project Lead at a 42-person design agency. They requested follow-up after our handoff webinar. No stated problem, budget, authority, or current tool. Public facts: remote coordinators and brand/web projects. Avoid implying office expansion caused pain.
Offer and qualification boundaries
Workflow product maps requester, owner, accepter, evidence, and escalation; Slack and Teams, no email-only or on-premise support. Best fit is recurring cross-role work. Single agency case exists but must not be used as a guarantee. Pricing starts around GBP 4,800/year but seat count affects it.
Meeting design
Goal: decide whether a 45-minute workflow review is useful. Two sellers attend; one leads, one notes. Ask permission before pricing. No recording. Warm, concise. Leave 3 minutes for next-step choice.
Example output
0-2 min — Confirm purpose: “What from the webinar or checklist made this conversation worth scheduling?” Capture their words as a direct statement; do not translate engagement into purchase intent.
2-7 — Current workflow: “Could you walk us through one recent, recurring project handoff from request to acceptance?” Follow with “Who declares it ready?” and “What tells the receiver it is acceptable?” Skip generic problem questions if the example already supplies evidence.
7-11 — Consequence and frequency: “How often does a handoff like that occur?” “When it does not move as expected, what happens next?” Ask for an example or existing measure; do not offer a cost estimate.
11-14 — Alternatives and desired evidence: “How is this handled today?” “What would need to be observably different for a change to be worthwhile?” If the current method works and change has no priority, do not manufacture dissatisfaction.
14-17 — Constraints and process: “Which channels or deployment requirements are non-negotiable?” “Who else would need to assess workflow, security, or commercial fit?” Then ask: “Would it be useful to discuss the rough price range now?” If yes, explain the starting context and seat dependency.
17-20 — Choice: summarize only confirmed points and ask whether a 45-minute review, a resource, or no next step is most useful.
Notes columns: exact statement; recent example; evidence or measure; seller inference; unknown; participant commitment. Disqualify if on-premise or email-only is mandatory. Do not schedule a review if no recurring handoff, no desired change, or participants prefer no next step.
Why this works
1
Concrete-example questions replace generic pain statements with inspectable workflow evidence.
2
Skip logic and listening time keep discovery conversational rather than exhaustive.
Check the result
Are questions open, single-purpose, and free of assumed pain or intent?
Does the guide leave enough time to listen and clarify?
Are direct evidence, inference, commitment, and unknown recorded separately?
ChatGPT