Chat Prompt Templates for Strategy Briefs and Research

Audience: existing teams that already use the workspace for repeated creative reviews. Product change: the new workflow helps them compare outputs, keep notes, and decide what to revise next. Value proposition: fewer scattered reviews and a clearer path from draft to approved asset. Proof points: use only the provided activation and customer feedback notes. Positioning boundaries: avoid claiming full automation, guaranteed quality, or replacement of human review. Review questions: confirm the success metric, support readiness, and which claims can appear on public pages.

Board risk: demand is promising but unit economics are not ready. Likely question: what support capacity breaks first. Prep answer: show demand signals separately from margin assumptions. Decision needed: approve research budget, not full rollout. Owner follow-up: finance model due before the next review.

Confirmed decision: no confirmed launch date yet. Open question: can onboarding copy be approved before Friday. Owner: product owns copy approval; support owns help doc draft. Risk: marketing date can slip if launch dependencies stay unresolved. Next check: 24-hour decision point on copy and help doc readiness.

Base case: team workspaces help agency and studio accounts without changing the solo flow. Upside: collaboration creates expansion revenue and lowers churn. Downside: permissions and billing complexity slow the core roadmap. Early signal: ask sales to tag qualified team requests for two weeks. Reversible decision: prototype invite and shared history before full admin roles.

Capacity risk: launch design is the bottleneck across three workstreams. Dependency risk: pricing test copy may depend on help center wording. Unclear owner: no owner named for launch sequencing. Decision needed: choose one primary launch or assign backup design support. Watch metric: missed design review dates by workstream.

Likely question: will credit packs reduce predictable revenue. Why it matters: finance needs forecast confidence. Answer outline: show current contract friction, expected conversion lift, and retention risk. Evidence needed: renewal behavior by segment. Answer to avoid: claiming churn will improve without cohort data.

Strong evidence: agencies are asking sales about multi-seat use. Weak evidence: interview demand may come from a narrow sample. Contradiction: analytics show mostly solo behavior today. Assumption: shared history will create enough value before permissions are complete. Decision impact: prototype shared history, but delay full seat packaging.

Intent: credit balance and failed task dispute. Urgency: high because refund is requested today. Likely owner: billing support with task log from product operations. First reply: acknowledge the failed task, ask for task ID, and confirm the team will check credit usage. Missing details: account email, task ID, timestamp, and payment reference.

Action item: check the upload bug. Owner: Alex. Due date: not stated. Dependency: pricing copy needs legal review. Unresolved decision: launch timing is not finalized. Follow-up: schedule a decision point after legal review.

Ready: implementation and QA are complete. Blocked: docs and support macro are missing. Owner gap: no named support owner. Customer-facing copy: update docs before external announcement. Rollback note: feature flag rollback is acceptable if flag owner is named.

Untranslated term: AI-powered workflow and unlock feel pasted from English. Stiff phrase: creative output is vague for a product page. Missing context: what task becomes faster is not stated. Claim risk: faster needs evidence or narrower wording. Suggested rewrite: 用 Rivya 把提示词、模型选择和生成结果放在同一个工作流里，更快完成首版素材。

Summary: video export freezes after upload and may affect visible credits. Steps to reproduce: upload video, start export, observe freeze after processing begins. Expected behavior: export completes or returns a clear failure. Actual behavior: page freezes twice according to user report. Missing data: task ID, timestamp, file size, account email, credit balance before and after.

Signal: users may need clearer model selection help. Source: sales calls and rising model article traffic. Confidence: medium because sales notes are qualitative and traffic intent is broad. Why it matters: model confusion can slow first task completion. Next evidence: tag support tickets and prompt searches related to model choice.

Fit: Vendor A fits analytics needs better; Vendor B fits budget pressure. Risk: both need security review before purchase. Cost concern: Vendor A annual minimum may exceed current usage. Integration effort: Vendor B creates manual CSV work. Questions before purchase: security status, data export limits, and minimum term flexibility.

Theme: model choice clarity. Sample quote: users mention confusing model names. Frequency hint: three notes, likely worth validating. Product implication: add plain-language model guidance near the run panel. Follow-up question: does guidance improve first successful generation for new users. Edge case: team history request may belong to agency workflow research.

Unanswered objection: what happens when a generation fails. Unclear plan fit: team use is not explained. Evidence gap: fast creation needs a concrete path or example. Copy risk: no hidden fees is broad unless billing rules are visible. Suggested clarification: add credit refund behavior, team limits, and a short example workflow.

Proposed bet: template pages support growth and model example depth. Constraint: engineering capacity is competing with sign-in cleanup. Dependency: billing docs may be needed before pricing experiments. Decision needed: choose one growth bet and one reliability bet. Risk if deferred: support burden grows if billing docs stay unclear.

Customer goal: manage image workflows for a team. Follow-up outline: recap workflow fit, answer history behavior, and confirm team billing constraints. Next question: how many creators need access in the first month. Internal risk: team billing may not match current packaging. CRM update: interested agency; team billing is decision blocker.