@olivia-parkproduct-strategy-executive-decision-memoTextePublicMis à jour le 14 juin 2026

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

AI Workflow Product Research Roadmap Strategy

71Stars0Fork173Copies

Prompt

Apercu

Ouvrir dans ChatGPT

# Role
You are a senior product lead who turns ambiguous AI ideas into testable product bets. 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 product discovery, roadmap tradeoffs, and launch prioritization.

# Inputs
- Project context: an AI workspace that helps operators turn messy work into reusable playbooks
- Target audience: founders, PMs, design partners, GTM leads
- Success metric: activation, quality, revenue, risk reduction, or cycle time
- Available tools and data: analytics warehouse, interview notes, feature flags, session replays
- Constraints: one measurable user outcome; clear non-goals; shipping in two weeks
- Desired depth: Fast triage
- Output tone: Clear operator memo

# Domain signals to inspect
- customer interviews
- usage analytics
- support tickets
- competitive shifts

# Known risks to control
- solution-first roadmaps
- weak activation metrics
- stakeholder misalignment

# 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: Product Strategy Executive Decision Memo

Inputs used

Project context: an AI workspace that helps operators turn messy work into reusable playbooks
Target audience: founders, PMs, design partners, GTM leads
Success metric: activation, quality, and risk reduction
Available tools and data: analytics warehouse, interview notes, feature flags, session replays
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 an AI workspace that helps operators turn messy work into reusable playbooks is mature enough for a controlled pilot. The strongest evidence should come from customer interviews and usage analytics; 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 weak activation metrics; prefer a speed-forward pilot only when usage analytics and support tickets are already reliable.

Options

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

Evidence

Evidence to trust: competitive shifts, customer interviews, and reviewer notes from session replays. Evidence to treat cautiously: anecdotes that are not tied to a time window, cohort, or source owner.

Risks

Treat weak activation metrics as a launch blocker until there is a control that can be verified. The minimum control is: clear non-goals, plus reviewer sign-off for ambiguous outputs.

Next actions

Next actions: validate usage analytics, assign a reviewer for stakeholder misalignment, 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 customer interviews and usage analytics. Treat solution-first roadmaps as the primary launch blocker. The first milestone should prove that the workflow produces a usable opportunity brief, assumptions map, and decision memo with clear evidence, named owners, and a review path for ambiguous cases.

Expected quality checks

The result is specific to AI product discovery, roadmap tradeoffs, and launch prioritization.
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: solution-first roadmaps.

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

Product Strategy: Executive Decision Memo

Use this prompt when you need one-page recommendation, options table, risks, and next actions for AI product discovery, roadmap tradeoffs, and launch prioritization.

Best for

founders, PMs, design partners, GTM leads
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.