The problem this fixes

Training intake is treated like a form instead of a decision system.

What good intake changes

Good intake helps the team decide whether to build training, improve documentation, fix a workflow, support managers, adjust the tool, or gather better evidence before creating another asset.

One-week implementation path

Make the system visible before making it bigger.

Day 1

Collect the last five requests

Pull five recent requests and write the requested format, audience, task, workflow break, requester, and current status.

Day 2

Sort request types

Sort each request into training, documentation, workflow, manager support, tool issue, measurement issue, or needs discovery.

Day 3

Define the minimum intake questions

Choose the smallest set of questions needed before accepting the work: audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, and decision.

Day 4

Test with one requester

Use the questions on one live request and note where the conversation gets clearer, stuck, or too heavy.

Day 5

Set the repeatable rhythm

Decide how requests enter, who triages them, what statuses mean, and when a request is accepted, redirected, blocked, or sent back for more detail.

Three ways to build it

Pick the lightest system that makes the work repeatable.

Manual setup

Use a whiteboard or one-page worksheet to map the request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, status, and decision.

Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace setup

Use Forms plus Lists, Forms plus Excel, Google Forms plus Sheets, or a shared project board to capture intake fields and make status visible.

AI-assisted setup

Use AI to sort rough request notes, draft clarifying questions, identify likely non-training causes, and summarize what still needs human confirmation.

Meeting script

Use these words when intake needs to slow down without stalling.

  • Before we choose a format, I want to make sure we understand the work problem.
  • What should the audience be able to do that they cannot reliably do now?
  • Where does that task break in the real workflow?
  • What evidence would make us comfortable saying the support helped?
  • Based on this, we may build training, but we may also redirect to documentation, manager support, workflow cleanup, a tool fix, or a measurement step.
Decision log

Use intake to choose the next move.

Accept

The audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, and review path are clear enough to start.

Redirect

The issue is better solved through documentation, manager support, workflow cleanup, tool support, or communication.

Pause

The requester has not confirmed the task, audience, evidence, or decision owner.

Investigate

The team needs examples, performance data, support tickets, manager input, or learner feedback before choosing a solution.

Measure after two weeks

Look for operating signals, not just activity.

  • Percent of requests with task, audience, workflow break, and evidence named before acceptance.
  • Number of requests redirected away from unnecessary course production.
  • Average time from request to first decision.
  • Most common missing intake field.
  • Requester feedback on whether the conversation clarified the need.
Research used

Use the sources as thinking tools, not a script.

CDC: Thinking in Systems

Useful for framing training requests as signals from a larger work system instead of treating the requested asset as the answer.

Prompt pack

Use AI to prepare, inspect, and summarize the intake work.

Diagnose a messy request

The requester has named a training format before the work problem is clear.

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 Diagnose a messy request for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The requester has named a training format before the work problem is clear.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. Likely request type
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Clarifying questions
6. Recommended next move

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Diagnose a messy request for an L&D system problem.
The requester has named a training format before the work problem is clear.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. Likely request type
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Clarifying questions
6. Recommended next move
</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 Diagnose a messy request from the notes provided.

Context: The requester has named a training format before the work problem is clear.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. Likely request type
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Clarifying questions
6. Recommended next move

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 Diagnose a messy request.

Context: The requester has named a training format before the work problem is clear.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. Likely request type
2. Known facts
3. Assumptions
4. Missing information
5. Clarifying questions
6. Recommended next move
Turn rough notes into intake questions

The team has notes from a requester conversation and needs better follow-up questions.

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 Turn rough notes into intake questions for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The team has notes from a requester conversation and needs better follow-up questions.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. Draft intake summary
2. Questions to ask the requester
3. Questions to ask the manager or workflow owner
4. Risks to check
5. Next action

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Turn rough notes into intake questions for an L&D system problem.
The team has notes from a requester conversation and needs better follow-up questions.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. Draft intake summary
2. Questions to ask the requester
3. Questions to ask the manager or workflow owner
4. Risks to check
5. Next action
</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 Turn rough notes into intake questions from the notes provided.

Context: The team has notes from a requester conversation and needs better follow-up questions.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. Draft intake summary
2. Questions to ask the requester
3. Questions to ask the manager or workflow owner
4. Risks to check
5. Next action

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 Turn rough notes into intake questions.

Context: The team has notes from a requester conversation and needs better follow-up questions.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. Draft intake summary
2. Questions to ask the requester
3. Questions to ask the manager or workflow owner
4. Risks to check
5. Next action
Sort requests by type

The team has several requests and needs to sort them before accepting work.

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 Sort requests by type for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The team has several requests and needs to sort them before accepting work.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. Request category
2. Reason for category
3. Missing information
4. Suggested owner
5. Next action

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Sort requests by type for an L&D system problem.
The team has several requests and needs to sort them before accepting work.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. Request category
2. Reason for category
3. Missing information
4. Suggested owner
5. Next action
</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 Sort requests by type from the notes provided.

Context: The team has several requests and needs to sort them before accepting work.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. Request category
2. Reason for category
3. Missing information
4. Suggested owner
5. Next action

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 Sort requests by type.

Context: The team has several requests and needs to sort them before accepting work.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. Request category
2. Reason for category
3. Missing information
4. Suggested owner
5. Next action
Identify missing information

The team is about to accept work and needs to confirm whether the scope is ready.

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 Identify missing information for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The team is about to accept work and needs to confirm whether the scope is ready.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. Ready to accept
2. Needs confirmation
3. Risks
4. Decision owner
5. Recommended response

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Identify missing information for an L&D system problem.
The team is about to accept work and needs to confirm whether the scope is ready.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. Ready to accept
2. Needs confirmation
3. Risks
4. Decision owner
5. Recommended response
</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 Identify missing information from the notes provided.

Context: The team is about to accept work and needs to confirm whether the scope is ready.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. Ready to accept
2. Needs confirmation
3. Risks
4. Decision owner
5. Recommended response

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 Identify missing information.

Context: The team is about to accept work and needs to confirm whether the scope is ready.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. Ready to accept
2. Needs confirmation
3. Risks
4. Decision owner
5. Recommended response
Draft a requester follow-up

The team needs a practical follow-up message that clarifies the request without sounding bureaucratic.

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 Draft a requester follow-up for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The team needs a practical follow-up message that clarifies the request without sounding bureaucratic.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. Short response
2. Questions to answer
3. Why these questions matter
4. Suggested next meeting or decision

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Draft a requester follow-up for an L&D system problem.
The team needs a practical follow-up message that clarifies the request without sounding bureaucratic.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. Short response
2. Questions to answer
3. Why these questions matter
4. Suggested next meeting or decision
</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 Draft a requester follow-up from the notes provided.

Context: The team needs a practical follow-up message that clarifies the request without sounding bureaucratic.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. Short response
2. Questions to answer
3. Why these questions matter
4. Suggested next meeting or decision

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 Draft a requester follow-up.

Context: The team needs a practical follow-up message that clarifies the request without sounding bureaucratic.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. Short response
2. Questions to answer
3. Why these questions matter
4. Suggested next meeting or decision
Review the intake workflow for risk

The team wants to make the intake process useful without making it heavy.

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 Review the intake workflow for risk for an L&D system problem.

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

Context: The team wants to make the intake process useful without making it heavy.

Use these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.

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. What works
2. What is too heavy
3. What is missing
4. Risks
5. One simplification

Claude 4 family

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

<context>
I am working on Review the intake workflow for risk for an L&D system problem.
The team wants to make the intake process useful without making it heavy.
</context>

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

<task>
Turn the source notes into a practical next move using these working fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
</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. What works
2. What is too heavy
3. What is missing
4. Risks
5. One simplification
</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 Review the intake workflow for risk from the notes provided.

Context: The team wants to make the intake process useful without making it heavy.

Working fields:
- request
- audience
- task
- workflow break
- evidence
- owner
- decision

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. What works
2. What is too heavy
3. What is missing
4. Risks
5. One simplification

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 Review the intake workflow for risk.

Context: The team wants to make the intake process useful without making it heavy.

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

Expectations:
- Work with these fields: request, audience, task, workflow break, evidence, owner, decision.
- 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. What works
2. What is too heavy
3. What is missing
4. Risks
5. One simplification
Try this one thing today

Run the Day 1 request sort with five recent requests before changing the intake form.