Why your answer was disappointing, and the four fixes

You asked for something. What came back was grammatical, confident, and useless. Not wrong exactly. Just flat, general, and clearly written for nobody.

That’s almost never the model having a bad day. It’s a prompt that didn’t say enough, and the machine filling the gaps with the most average thing that fits.

Here’s the part worth holding on to: it fills gaps silently. It never says “I need more from you.” It produces something, and the something is the average of everything that could have matched what you said.

Four things close those gaps. They’re in order. The first one fixes more bad answers than the other three together.

---

Fix 1: say who it’s for and what happens next

This is the big one, and it’s the one people skip.

“Write a summary of this report” has no reader in it. So you get a summary aimed at nobody, which reads as a summary aimed at nobody.

Compare:

Summarise this report.

Summarise this report for our finance director, who will read it
on her phone in the ten minutes before a budget meeting. She
already knows the project background. She needs to know what
changed since last quarter and what decision we want from her.

Same document. Completely different output. The second one has somewhere to go.

You don’t need a paragraph. You need two facts: who reads it and what they do next. A decision, an approval, a forward to someone else. Say that and half the vagueness disappears on its own.

---

Fix 2: give it the material

The first guide in this track covered the split between working on material you supply and supplying material from memory. This is where it bites.

If you ask about your Q3 results without pasting your Q3 results, it will write something that sounds like Q3 results. Confident, plausible, and made up.

So paste the source. The email thread, the notes, the draft, the numbers. If it can’t be pasted, say what you know instead of letting it guess.

The rule of thumb: anything you leave out, it will invent rather than ask about.

---

Fix 3: say what you don’t want

Prompts almost always describe the target and skip the boundaries. The boundaries are where the annoying failures live.

Don't open with a preamble. Start with the first real point.
Don't invent figures. If a number isn't in what I gave you, write
  "not stated" instead of estimating.
Don't use the words "leverage", "robust", or "seamless".
No conclusion paragraph that restates the summary.

The “not stated” line is the valuable one. Told to mark a gap, it usually will. Left alone, it fills the gap with something that looks like an answer, and you find out later.

---

Fix 4: show it one example

Description is slow. An example is instant.

If you have one piece of writing that hit the mark, paste it and say “match this register, this length, this level of detail.” One sample teaches more about tone than a paragraph describing the tone.

No example handy? Give it the shape instead:

Format: three bullets, one line each, no sub-bullets.
Each bullet starts with a verb.
Under fifteen words per bullet.

Specific and checkable beats “make it punchy”, which means nothing to a machine and, honestly, not much to a person.

---

The order matters

If you only do one, do the first. A prompt with a reader and a purpose and nothing else usually beats a prompt with formatting rules and no reader.

Missing	What you get
Who it’s for	Correct, general, aimed at nobody
The material	Confident invention
The boundaries	Preamble, filler, quiet guesses
An example	Right content, wrong register

That table is also a diagnostic. When something comes back thin, read what you got, find the row that matches, and add that one thing rather than rewriting from scratch.

---

Putting it together

The thin version:

Write a LinkedIn post about our new reporting feature.

The version with all four:

Write a LinkedIn post about our new reporting feature.

WHO IT'S FOR
Operations managers at mid-size logistics firms. They already use
our product. They are not technical and don't care how it's built.
After reading, I want them to click through to the release notes.

THE MATERIAL
[paste the release notes]

WHAT NOT TO DO
Don't invent customer names, numbers, or quotes. If a benefit
isn't in the release notes, leave it out. No hashtags. Don't
open with a question.

THE SHAPE
Under 120 words. Four short paragraphs. Plain sentences. Match
the register of this post I wrote last month: [paste one]

That takes about three minutes to fill in. It’s the difference between something you post and something you rewrite from scratch.

---

When it breaks

It’s still generic after all four. Usually the “who it’s for” is a category rather than a person. “Marketers” is a category. “A marketing manager who has to justify this spend to her CFO on Friday” is a person. Narrow it until one specific reader appears.

It followed the format and lost the point. Too many shape rules and not enough purpose. Cut the formatting instructions in half and add a sentence about what the reader does next.

It ignored one of your rules. Long prompts drop things, and it tends to drop the negatives first. Put the one rule that matters most on its own line at the very end, where it’s read last.

It obeyed something you didn’t mean. A stray example gets treated as a template. If you paste a sample for tone, label it: “this is for register only, not structure, and not content.”

It made something up anyway. The “not stated” instruction reduces this. It doesn’t remove it. Anything specific that you didn’t supply still needs checking, every time.

---

What this doesn’t fix

None of this makes it reliable about facts it was never given. A perfect prompt asking about last month’s release still gets you a confident guess.

The four fixes make a thin answer specific. Checking whether a specific answer is true is a separate job, and it’s the next piece in this track.