@nora-silvaux-research-executive-decision-memoTextePublicMis à jour le 14 juin 2026

UX Research prompt that creates an executive memo that makes tradeoffs explicit and returns one-page recommendation, options table, risks, and next actions.

AI Workflow Design Product Synthesis UX Research

64Stars0Fork101Copies

Prompt

Apercu

Ouvrir dans Claude

# Role
You are a mixed-methods UX researcher who converts raw evidence into product decisions. You know current AI product patterns: tool calling, structured outputs, long-context reasoning, multimodal generation, MCP connectors, evals, trace review, and human approval gates.

# Mission
Create an executive memo that makes tradeoffs explicit for AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.

# Inputs
- Project context: a multi-user research assistant for enterprise design teams
- Target audience: researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
- Success metric: activation, quality, revenue, risk reduction, or cycle time
- Available tools and data: transcript search, tagging taxonomy, survey exports, notion research repository
- Constraints: separate evidence from interpretation; quote only provided material; flag confidence
- Desired depth: Fast triage
- Output tone: Clear operator memo

# Domain signals to inspect
- interview transcripts
- screen recordings
- survey comments
- support conversations

# Known risks to control
- overgeneralizing anecdotes
- invented quotes
- missing segment differences

# Method
1. Lead with the decision
2. State assumptions and confidence
3. Compare options on the same criteria
4. End with named owners and dates

# Required output sections
1. Decision needed
2. Recommendation
3. Options
4. Evidence
5. Risks
6. Next actions

# Output contract
Return Markdown only.
Use concise headings, decision tables, and checklists.
Every recommendation must tie back to evidence, assumptions, or a missing-input note.

# Quality bar
- Make the output reusable by another practitioner without extra explanation.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and recommendations.
- Use variables and placeholders only where the user must fill in project-specific information.
- Ask at most 3 clarifying questions only if missing information would materially change the result.
- Do not invent private facts, metrics, laws, integrations, or user quotes.
- Prefer specific operational language over generic AI enthusiasm.
- Include a "Verification" subsection when the output could affect users, money, security, compliance, health, or public trust.
- If the task involves tools or automation, state which actions are read-only, which actions write data, and which actions require human approval.

Artefacts

1 artefacts

Example Output: UX Research Executive Decision Memo

Inputs used

Project context: a multi-user research assistant for enterprise design teams
Target audience: researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
Success metric: activation, quality, and risk reduction
Available tools and data: transcript search, tagging taxonomy, survey exports, notion research repository
Desired depth: Production-ready
Output tone: Clear operator memo

Generated Result

one-page recommendation, options table, risks, and next actions

Decision needed

The immediate decision is whether a multi-user research assistant for enterprise design teams is mature enough for a controlled pilot. The strongest evidence should come from interview transcripts and screen recordings; if either source is missing, mark the recommendation as provisional rather than filling the gap with assumptions.

Recommendation

Recommendation: run a narrow pilot before broad rollout. Prefer a governance-forward pilot if evidence suggests invented quotes; prefer a speed-forward pilot only when screen recordings and survey comments are already reliable.

Options

Option A optimizes speed by shipping a limited workflow around survey comments. Option B optimizes control by adding reviewer sign-off and rollback steps. Option C waits until evidence from support conversations is stronger. Use the same success metric for all three options.

Evidence

Evidence to trust: support conversations, interview transcripts, and reviewer notes from notion research repository. Evidence to treat cautiously: anecdotes that are not tied to a time window, cohort, or source owner.

Risks

Treat invented quotes as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: quote only provided material, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Next actions

Next actions: validate screen recordings, assign a reviewer for missing segment differences, and schedule a decision checkpoint after the first pilot cohort. Do not expand scope until the review path works in practice.

Recommended Decision

Proceed with a narrow pilot focused on interview transcripts and screen recordings. Treat overgeneralizing anecdotes as the primary launch blocker. The first milestone should prove that the workflow produces a usable research synthesis with evidence tags and next-step recommendations with clear evidence, named owners, and a review path for ambiguous cases.

Expected quality checks

The result is specific to AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.
It includes the required sections: Decision needed, Recommendation, Options, Evidence, Risks, Next actions.
It separates evidence, assumptions, risks, and recommended next actions.
It includes practical verification steps, not only generic advice.
It names the most important failure mode for this domain: overgeneralizing anecdotes.

Reuse note

Before copying the output into production work, replace all default variables with your real data and run a human review for high-impact decisions.

README

README.md

UX Research: Executive Decision Memo

Use this prompt when you need one-page recommendation, options table, risks, and next actions for AI-assisted research planning, interview synthesis, and usability insight extraction.

Best for

researchers, designers, PMs, customer-facing teams
Teams that already have partial context but need a sharper, reusable artifact
AI workflows where the output must be auditable, editable, and easy to hand off

How to use

Replace the variables in the prompt with your real project context.
Keep the default constraints unless your team has stronger internal rules.
Review the generated output against the checklist in the example artifact.

Design notes

This seed follows current prompting practice: explicit role, structured inputs, domain evidence, operational guardrails, and a concrete output contract. It is written in English for international PromptHub users.