LESSON 3 OF 6 · ADVANCED
Build prompts that expose uncertainty
State the task, context, constraints, desired structure and required checks. Ask for assumptions and gaps, then verify the output against appropriate sources. A confident response is not evidence. Do not ask a model to infer protected characteristics or suitability from demographic proxies. Keep claims of tool capability separate from observed behavior.
Write a prompt with a factuality check and a human review step.
About 2 minutes reading + 12 minutes practice. Take longer when needed.
Apply the method
Write prompts that make review easier: task, permitted context, constraints, output structure, uncertainty and checks. Ask the system to identify missing information rather than invent it. Use sources supplied or independently verified by a qualified reviewer for factual claims. Inspect whether the output follows constraints and whether it quietly adds unsupported credentials, familiarity or promises. Keep a human accountable for the final use. A model can assist drafting, but a confident answer is not evidence that a claim is true.
A worked application
Fictional example: The prompt requests a short outreach message for a fictional operations role, with no assumed dissatisfaction and no guaranteed results. The draft invents that the recruiter has followed the candidate for years. The reviewer removes the claim and revises the prompt to require every personalization fact to come from the supplied fictional brief. The failure becomes a test case.
Common mistake to avoid
Do not evaluate only whether the prose sounds polished. Check factual support, permitted inputs and whether the output creates an unintended commitment.
Work through the case
FICTIONAL SCENARIO
Ask for a draft outreach message based on a fictional role, with no invented familiarity or guaranteed results. Review whether it follows those constraints before using it.
Make it practical
Write a prompt with a factuality check and a human review step.
Compare your reasoning with a worked response
Require the draft to identify missing information and avoid unsupported claims. The human reviewer remains accountable for the final message.
Takeaway
Use the method to explain your decision, identify what you still need to verify and choose an accountable next step.
Treat the response as a model for reasoning, not the only possible wording. Adapt it to the role, evidence and appropriate organizational guidance.