Analyze the following case as a decision memo, using evidence rather than a polished story. Decision to make: [DECISION] Case facts and source material: [CASE MATERIAL] Stakeholders and constraints: [STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSTRAINTS] Success measures and timeframe: [SUCCESS MEASURES] Available data and source links: [DATA AND SOURCES] First, separate facts supplied in the case from assumptions, interpretations, and missing information. State the core problem in one sentence and list the decision criteria in priority order. If sources are supplied, cite them by title or link beside the claim they support. If no source supports a claim, label it as an assumption rather than presenting it as fact. Produce a 900-1,200 word case analysis with these sections: 1. Executive recommendation, including the decision and the conditions required for it to work. 2. Situation and root-cause analysis, using a suitable method such as issue tree, five whys, value-chain review, or unit-economics breakdown; explain why that method fits. 3. Three viable options, including a status-quo option. Compare expected benefit, cost or effort, risks, dependencies, and time to impact. 4. A recommendation with a phased implementation plan, owner types, milestones, and leading indicators. 5. Key assumptions, sensitivity points, and the data that would most change the recommendation. Do not invent financial figures, customer research, legal conclusions, or source citations. Self-check that each recommendation addresses the stated decision criteria and that the strongest counterargument receives a direct response. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [DECISION] | State the exact decision the analysis should help make. | Decide whether to expand a regional equipment-rental company into same-day delivery for contractor customers. |
| [CASE MATERIAL] | Paste the case narrative, notes, documents, or facts to analyze. | The company has 12 branches, utilization is 68%, and contractors report lost time when a replacement tool is unavailable; dispatch teams already schedule next-day deliveries. |
| [STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSTRAINTS] | List affected groups, budget, timing, operational, legal, or policy constraints. | Branch managers, dispatch, drivers, contractors, and finance; no new branch openings this year; pilot budget capped at $180,000. |
| [SUCCESS MEASURES] | Define the outcomes and time horizon used to judge the decision. | Improve contractor retention and delivery contribution margin within six months without reducing next-day service levels. |
| [DATA AND SOURCES] | Paste available data, calculations, source links, and known data limitations. | Internal Q2 utilization report, dispatch logs for April-June, 42 customer survey responses, and branch-level labor cost spreadsheet. |
How to use
- Paste the source material as-is, including weak or conflicting evidence, rather than summarizing away uncertainty.
- State the decision and success measures before asking for options; otherwise the analysis may optimize for the wrong outcome.
- Trace every number and factual assertion in the output back to a provided source or relabel it as an assumption.
- Follow up with: "Build a one-page decision table for executives, including the evidence that would reverse this recommendation."
Variations
Investment case
Use this when a leadership team must approve spending or resource allocation.
Create an investment-case analysis for [PROPOSAL] using [BUSINESS FACTS], [FINANCIAL DATA], and [CONSTRAINTS]. Produce an executive memo with the problem, strategic rationale, baseline, cost categories, benefit mechanisms, downside case, and three scenarios: conservative, base, and upside. Show calculations only where inputs support them; otherwise state the formula and missing data. Compare against [ALTERNATIVES], including doing nothing. Flag assumptions that need finance, legal, or operational validation. Ask up to 3 questions only if required inputs are missing.
Customer case
Use this to decide how to respond to churn, adoption, or account-risk evidence.
Analyze this customer situation: [ACCOUNT CONTEXT], [USAGE DATA], [CUSTOMER FEEDBACK], and [COMMERCIAL CONSTRAINTS]. Identify facts versus interpretations, diagnose the most plausible causes of the issue, and propose three response paths. For each path, state customer value, operational effort, commercial risk, and signals that would show it is working. Produce a 30-day action plan with owner roles and customer-facing questions. Do not infer intent from silence or invent product capabilities. Ask up to 3 questions only if required inputs are missing.
Operations case
Use this for a process bottleneck, quality issue, or service-level failure.
Analyze an operations problem involving [PROCESS], using [PERFORMANCE DATA], [OBSERVATIONS], and [CONSTRAINTS]. Map the current workflow, identify bottlenecks and failure points, and distinguish correlation from likely causation. Propose a low-risk experiment, a medium-term fix, and a structural option. For each, specify expected effect, owner type, dependencies, and measures to track. Produce a concise recommendation memo and flag missing observations needed to validate root cause. Ask up to 3 questions only if required inputs are missing.
Tips
- Use a status-quo option in every decision comparison; it makes the cost of action and the cost of delay visible.
- Keep source links or document names beside material claims, especially when multiple reports use different periods or definitions.
- Distinguish leading indicators from outcome metrics: for example, training completion may lead adoption, but it does not prove retention improved.
- Ask what evidence would overturn the recommendation before presenting it; this surfaces fragile assumptions early.
FAQ
Can AI cite sources in a case analysis?
It can cite the sources you provide or research it can actually access. It should never fabricate a citation, publication date, or data point.
How much data do I need?
A useful analysis can begin with imperfect data if it labels assumptions and specifies what is missing. The recommendation should become narrower when evidence is weak.
Can this replace financial, legal, or technical review?
No. Use the analysis to frame the decision and identify issues for qualified reviewers, particularly where regulated, contractual, or safety consequences apply.