Who this is for

Instructional designers carrying intake, design, SME review, production, QA, and maintenance with limited support.

What usually breaks
  • Course requests skip the performance problem.
  • SME review mixes facts, preferences, risk, and approval.
  • Content is built once and then becomes hard to maintain.
First 15-minute move

Before building, ask what task the learner needs to perform and what evidence would show readiness.

What to inspect this week

Review one project for scope creep, review comment types, source material, reusable pieces, and retirement needs.

Three ways to work the problem

Start simple, then make the system visible.

Manual way

Use a paper scope guard: task, audience, source, review owner, evidence, and out-of-scope items.

Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace way

Use Docs or Word for source notes, Sheets or Excel for review status, and a shared folder naming pattern for source, draft, review, and final assets.

AI-assisted way

Use AI to draft clarifying questions, convert broad outlines into task-based modules, and group SME comments before you respond.

Prompt starters

Use AI to prepare the work, not replace the judgment.

ChatGPT GPT-5 family

Use an outcome-first prompt with the job, approved source material, constraints, and the exact artifact you want back.

I am working on Solo Instructional Designer for an L&D system problem.

Goal: Help me turn the notes below into a practical next move.

Context: Help a solo instructional designer protect scope and turn rough source material into maintainable learning support.

Use these working fields: current situation, what usually breaks, what to inspect, manual move, workspace move, AI-assisted move.

Rules:
- Use only the source notes I provide.
- Do not invent policy details, metrics, learner needs, compliance requirements, or business context.
- Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, and next actions.
- Flag anything that needs requester, reviewer, leader, legal, compliance, LMS owner, or manager confirmation.
- Keep the output practical enough to review in a working meeting.

Source notes:
[paste approved notes here]

Return:
1. Working diagnosis
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Practical next move
6. Review questions for the team

Claude 4 family

Use XML-style sections so context, source material, task, constraints, and output format stay separate.

<context>
I am working on Solo Instructional Designer for an L&D system problem.
Help a solo instructional designer protect scope and turn rough source material into maintainable learning support.
</context>

<source_notes>
[paste approved notes here]
</source_notes>

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: current situation, what usually breaks, what to inspect, manual move, workspace move, AI-assisted move.
</task>

<constraints>
Use only the source notes provided.
Do not invent policy details, metrics, learner needs, compliance requirements, or business context.
Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, risks, and next actions.
Flag anything that changes scope, ownership, evidence, risk, or decision rights.
</constraints>

<output_format>
1. Working diagnosis
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Practical next move
6. Review questions for the team
</output_format>

Gemini 3 family

Use a clear task, labeled input, and one example pattern. For Obsidian context, use approved excerpts, Drive exports, Google Docs, or NotebookLM source sets.

Task: Help me make progress on Solo Instructional Designer from the notes provided.

Context: Help a solo instructional designer protect scope and turn rough source material into maintainable learning support.

Working fields:
- current situation
- what usually breaks
- what to inspect
- manual move
- workspace move
- AI-assisted move

Example pattern:
Field: Missing information
Good answer: Name the specific information to confirm, who can confirm it, and why it affects the next decision.

Rules:
- Use only the source notes provided.
- If information is missing, write "Needs confirmation".
- Keep the output concise and reviewable.
- End with the next best action.

Source notes:
[paste approved notes here]

Output format:
1. Working diagnosis
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Practical next move
6. Review questions for the team

Microsoft 365 Copilot

Use goal, context, source, expectations, and output. For Obsidian context, use approved excerpts, Word summaries, OneDrive files, SharePoint pages, Teams context, or Outlook threads.

Goal: Help me make progress on Solo Instructional Designer.

Context: Help a solo instructional designer protect scope and turn rough source material into maintainable learning support.

Source: Use the selected document, meeting notes, spreadsheet, email thread, SharePoint file, or pasted notes as the only source.

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: current situation, what usually breaks, what to inspect, manual move, workspace move, AI-assisted move.
- Mark uncertain items as "Needs confirmation".
- Do not add facts that are not in the source.
- Separate known facts, assumptions, missing information, risks, and next actions.
- Summarize the top review questions for the team.

Output:
1. Working diagnosis
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Practical next move
6. Review questions for the team
Try this one thing today

Use the SME Review Checklist before responding to the next review thread.