The question
after the question.

A small change can travel a long way. Follow it. Then take a better question into your next meeting.

Take a working prompt

01 / Rehearse the consequenceFictional situations. Real questions.

The number changed. Did the business?

A reporting team moves its revenue measure from order date to recognition date. The source records have not changed.

The change01 / 04

One date field changes.

The new measure answers when revenue is recognized. The old measure answered when an order was placed. Both may have a purpose.

Same records. Different question.

Follow the consequence

DefinitionNow

Comparison

Decision

Change record

A change rarely stays
where it starts.

Motion reduced. Step through at your pace.

Read the complete sequence

One date field changes.
The new measure answers when revenue is recognized. The old measure answered when an order was placed. Both may have a purpose.
The comparison stops being like for like.
This month uses the new definition. Last month still uses the old one. The chart can now suggest movement that the business did not make.
Someone acts on the difference.
A forecast, an incentive, or an AI summary may reuse the measure without knowing it changed. The definition travels farther than the dashboard.
Make the change explainable.
Name the owner. Compare both definitions on a bounded sample. Agree how historical comparisons, downstream uses, and exceptions will be handled.

An illustrative sequence, not a client case or a prediction. Your policies and operating conditions determine the right response.

02 / Take the next question

Can the next person explain the difference without calling the person who built it?

Use it with your team, or copy a structured prompt into an AI tool your organization approves.

What to leave the room with

A definition change record: decision supported; old and new definitions; effective date; known downstream uses; historical comparison treatment; accountable owner; evidence still needed.

Read the thinking behind it

Who is it for?

Questions worth making time for.

Which decision uses this measure, and do the old and new definitions answer the same question?
Which reports, incentives, forecasts, or AI workflows inherit it? Which dependencies are still unverified?
Can a change in the measure be separated from a change in the underlying business?
Who approves the definition, resolves exceptions, and explains historical comparisons?
What bounded comparison would give us evidence to proceed, revise, or stop?

Full prompt · select to copy manually

Prepare a concise working note for an internal discussion. Use only information I am authorized to provide in this tool. Do not ask for confidential records or production access. If I have not provided enough context, ask for a sanitized description of the decision and pause; do not invent an organization, facts, results, or owners.

THE QUESTION
Can the next person explain the difference without calling the person who built it?

CONTEXT TO ADD
[A sanitized description of our decision, current process, and known constraints.]

AUDIENCE
Write for the accountable sponsor. Lead with the decision to make, the consequence of waiting, and the evidence needed. Keep technical detail only where it changes that decision.

EXAMINE
1. Which decision uses this measure, and do the old and new definitions answer the same question?
2. Which reports, incentives, forecasts, or AI workflows inherit it? Which dependencies are still unverified?
3. Can a change in the measure be separated from a change in the underlying business?
4. Who approves the definition, resolves exceptions, and explains historical comparisons?
5. What bounded comparison would give us evidence to proceed, revise, or stop?

RETURN
A definition change record: decision supported; old and new definitions; effective date; known downstream uses; historical comparison treatment; accountable owner; evidence still needed.
Use a compact table. Label each material statement as supplied fact, inference, or unknown. Link facts to the context or evidence I supplied; do not invent citations. For each unresolved item, name the role that should answer it and the smallest evidence request that could resolve it. Finish with one decision for the next meeting and what would change the recommendation. This is a working hypothesis for human review, not a finding about our organization.

Prompt adapted from KimberLyte Working tools: https://kimberlytegroup.com/working-tools/
The website's scenarios are fictional illustrations, not evidence about our organization.

No account. No upload. Add only approved, sanitized context in your own tool. The prompt asks it to separate facts, inferences, and unknowns.

For the person doing the homework

Make us easy
to look into.

Taking a closer look, or asking an assistant to do it? Start with the public sources. Ask it to distinguish what we say from what it can independently verify.

Have a situation
that deserves a closer look?

Working tools by KimberLyte. Freely available for internal discussion and adaptation.

The number changed. Did the business?

One date field changes.

One date field changes.

The comparison stops being like for like.

Someone acts on the difference.

Make the change explainable.

Can the next person explain the difference without calling the person who built it?

Questions worth making time for.

Make us easyto look into.

Make us easy
to look into.