Convert the messy debate input below into a structured one-page decision memo. Use exactly these sections:
1. Decision: stated in one sentence.
2. Options considered: 2-3 options, each with a one-line description and the tradeoff. Do not invent options that weren't actually on the table.
3. Criteria: the criteria used to choose, in priority order. Maximum 4.
4. Recommendation: one paragraph stating which option and why, anchored to the criteria.
5. Risks: 2-3 risks with one-line mitigations each.
6. What would change our mind: the specific conditions under which we'd reverse this decision. This section is mandatory - if you cannot fill it, the decision isn't actually decided yet.
The messy input:
{{debate_input}}
Decision memo (one-pager)
Add to PromptPaste
Download PromptPaste for MacDownload PromptPaste for iPhoneDownload PromptPaste for iPadDownload PromptPaste for Mac & iPhone
the prompt
Example output
Decision: Ship cross-device sync as opt-in for the first 30 days, then evaluate.
Options considered:
- A) Opt-in (chosen): Users explicitly enable. Lower adoption (~30% expected), lower support load.
- B) Opt-out: Default on for everyone. Higher adoption (~80% expected), but ~3x support load and one-way migration risk.
- C) Phased rollout: 10% / 50% / 100% over 4 weeks. Slower learning, more eng coordination cost.
Criteria (in priority order):
1. Data integrity - cannot lose user filter state.
2. Support load - team capacity is at 80% this quarter.
3. Speed of learning - want signal within 30 days.
Recommendation: A. Trades adoption rate for risk containment, which matches our criteria order.
Risks: Adoption is too low to learn anything in 30 days (mitigation: prompt power users explicitly in-product). Users opt in, then iCloud capacity hits a known edge case (mitigation: capacity confirmed Tuesday).
What would change our mind: Adoption < 10% in week 1, OR a critical bug surfaces in opt-in cohort that doesn't reproduce locally. Either triggers a re-evaluation Wednesday of week 2.
Common mistakes
Don't skip 'what would change our mind' - this is the section that separates a decision memo from a justification doc. If you can't name the conditions under which you'd reverse course, you didn't actually make a decision; you made an announcement. Also: don't let the model invent options that weren't actually considered. If only A and B were on the table, force the output to two options. Inventing C looks balanced but pollutes the historical record of what the team actually debated.
More from AI Prompts for Product Managers
PRD draft from a one-line problem
Act as a senior product manager. I'm going to give you a one-line problem statement. Before drafting any PRD, do this: 1. State the…
Customer interview synthesis
Read the raw customer interview transcripts below. Produce: 1. The top 5 themes ranked by frequency (number of interviews where the theme…
Stakeholder weekly update
Convert my raw bullets below into a weekly stakeholder update. Use exactly three sections: 1. Shipped: each item with a one-line outcome,…
Why it works
Decision memos are the highest-leverage PM artifact - a one-pager that survives a Slack scroll three weeks later, a new exec joining mid-discussion, or a postmortem six months on. Most PMs skip writing them because the format feels heavy. This prompt removes the friction: paste the messy debate (Slack threads, doc comments, your own scattered notes) and get back a structured one-pager with: decision, options considered, criteria, recommendation, risks, and what would change our mind. The 'what would change our mind' section is the differentiator - it surfaces the falsifiability of your reasoning, which is the thing most decision memos lack and most postmortems wish had been written down. Tested cleanest on Claude Opus 4.7 - handles long messy input and preserves the actual reasoning thread.