GPT 6 FIELDGUIDE
GPT 6 PROMPT

Edit against a brief

Revise creative work while preserving its intended voice.

Independent resource

Complete prompt

Task
Revise creative work while preserving its intended voice.

Instructions
Edit [DRAFT] against this brief: [BRIEF]. Return a clean revision and a change log grouped by clarity, rhythm, audience fit, factual risk, and voice. Keep lines that already work. Flag brief conflicts instead of silently choosing one interpretation.

Expected output
Revised draft, concise change log, and questions for the owner.

Checks
- Voice remains recognizable.
- Changes map to the brief.
- Factual risks are called out.

Expected output and checks

Expected output

Revised draft, concise change log, and questions for the owner.

Checks

  • Voice remains recognizable.
  • Changes map to the brief.
  • Factual risks are called out.

Worked example

Edit against a brief: recorded example

Codex · GPT-6 Astra · medium reasoning ·

Original input

Task
Revise creative work while preserving its intended voice.

Instructions
Edit Paper Lantern starts with a simple idea: make a useful thing together. Our workshop is on19September2026,from14:00to16:00. We have24 places. Bring your curiosity, not expensive equipment. Thousands of delighted people have already attended, and everyone leaves transformed. We have no attendance records supporting that sentence. Volunteers will arrange tables, welcome participants and share the materials we already have. The room booking is still pending. We want the note to sound friendly, practical and a little playful. A participant should understand the date, time and what to do next without reading a sales pitch. The draft currently repeats the invitation: register at example.org/workshop, tell a friend, and sign up today. The website is a fictional placeholder in this training example, and no messages should be sent. against this brief: Produce120–160words. Preserve exactly: Bring your curiosity, not expensive equipment. Keep date19September2026,time14:00–16:00,capacity24. Remove unsupported attendance/guarantee claims. OneCTA. Conflicting instructions: say venue is confirmed, but also never add facts beyond draft. Flag this conflict rather than claiming a confirmed venue.. Return a clean revision and a change log grouped by clarity, rhythm, audience fit, factual risk, and voice. Keep lines that already work. Flag brief conflicts instead of silently choosing one interpretation.

Expected output
Revised draft, concise change log, and questions for the owner.

Checks
- Voice remains recognizable.
- Changes map to the brief.
- Factual risks are called out.

What the checks found

  • The edited draft is within 120–160 words and preserves the exact required sentence, date, time and capacity.
  • Unsupported attendance and transformation claims are removed. The request to call the pending venue confirmed is explicitly rejected as a conflict.
  • The first response repeats the practical tasks in adjacent sentences.

Revisions after the first output

  • No factual correction. The mild repetition is retained in the first draft and identified as an editorial limitation.
Original output
Revised draft

Paper Lantern starts with a simple idea: make a useful thing together. Our workshop is on 19 September 2026, from 14:00–16:00, and we have 24 places.

Bring your curiosity, not expensive equipment.

Volunteers will arrange tables, welcome participants and share the materials we already have. There are tables to arrange and materials to share: practical jobs that help the workshop take shape. If that sounds like your sort of afternoon, the details above are a good place to start.

The room booking is still pending, so the venue is not yet confirmed. That detail matters when you’re planning your afternoon, and we don’t want to skip over it.

To register, visit example.org/workshop.

This is a fictional training example. The website address is a placeholder, not an active registration service.

Change log
  • Clarity: Separated the date, time, capacity, volunteer tasks, and single registration CTA. Made the pending room booking explicit.
  • Rhythm: Kept the opening and gave the curiosity sentence its own line. Used short paragraphs around practical details.
  • Audience fit: Kept the invitation concrete and low-pressure. Removed “tell a friend” and the repeated sign-up request.
  • Factual risk: Removed unsupported attendance numbers and the transformation guarantee. Preserved the fictional-placeholder disclosure. The instruction to say the venue is confirmed conflicts with the pending booking and the ban on adding facts; this revision retains the documented pending status and flags the conflict here.
  • Voice: Preserved exactly “Bring your curiosity, not expensive equipment.” Kept “make a useful thing together” and the friendly, practical tone.
Question for the owner

Can you resolve the venue conflict by either confirming the booking with evidence or approving “room booking is still pending” for the final copy?

Files from this run