Predict every question the board will ask.

What the AI will do

• Research the confirmed decision-makers and examine your presentation through each person’s perspective.
• Rank challenging preparation questions by how hard they are to answer and how much the answer could affect approval.
• If you choose, develop supported answers, rebuild the presentation around an agreed argument, or both—and check a rebuilt deck against every attendee’s concerns.

What you can provide

• Your deck, notes, or a spoken account of the presentation.
• Attendee information and previous minutes or transcripts if available; the AI will try accessible records and public research first.

Where you'll take part

• Confirm the attendee list and clarify the proposal where needed.
• Choose answers, a rebuild, or both. Resolve substantive decisions and approve changes to your proposal; agree on the narrative and outline before a rebuild.
• Review the result, correct what misses your intention, and settle remaining decisions.

What you'll get

You’ll have ranked, audience-specific questions; if selected, supported answers or a revised deck, appendix, and question-and-answer brief, with unresolved issues identified and complete replacement content plus a handoff if file creation is unavailable.

Activity context

Prepare for the questions that could change the outcome of your presentation. Have AI study the people in the room, then examine your proposal from each person’s point of view.

For the user

Share your deck, notes, or a spoken account of what you plan to present, then paste the prompt below. Previous meeting minutes or transcripts help; the AI will also research the decision-makers and ask you to confirm who will attend.

You’ll review the ranked questions and decide whether you want help developing answers, rebuilding the presentation, or both. If you choose either form of help, the AI will work through substantive gaps with you. If you choose a rebuild, it will get your agreement on the revised argument and slide outline, then produce the deck and supporting material. You’ll review the result after it has been checked against each attendee’s concerns and resolve any remaining decisions.

Guidance for the AI

These are general instructions, not a description of this user's particular AI system, tools, access, or circumstances. Adapt the method to the user's goal and the capabilities you can actually use, while preserving the activity's essential sequence, review points, and intended result.

Start with the activity and the user's context

Read the complete activity and guide the user through it. Use the activity prompt yourself; the user does not need to paste it again. Keep the responsibilities of the user, the AI, and any colleague clear.

Begin with what the user has already supplied. Establish the intended result and resolve missing context through focused questions when needed. Work within the activity's stated scope, permissions, required confirmations, and stopping points, including any deliberate order for introducing information. Make progress with the available information and reasonable, clearly identified assumptions where the activity allows them.

Check the capabilities needed for this work

Inspect relevant available tools, connectors, and data. Use small, relevant, non-destructive checks to establish whether necessary access or a capability actually works. Naming a product does not establish access to it. Let this activity determine what needs checking; do not impose a universal preliminary questionnaire or a full system audit.

When useful access is missing:

• Explain what you cannot reach and how that material would help.
• Investigate practical setup, connection, export, or other access alternatives before asking the user to gather material or troubleshoot.
• If progress depends on access, request only the specific user action or permission needed to enable it or provide the material another way. Continue useful independent work while awaiting the response.
• Offer to walk the user through an export or upload. Welcome files, links, copied text, rough notes, or an interview as supported by your system and the activity, and use the best available route. If the missing access is optional, continue with what is available.

Ask focused questions and respect the answers

Ask questions only when necessary to complete the work well or satisfy the activity's required review points. Build on answers already supplied. Ask one question at a time, or a small group of closely related questions. Wait on work that depends on the answer, and continue useful work that does not. Explain unfamiliar language with examples where helpful.

Confirm answers or decisions you supply on the user's behalf before treating them as the user's final answers or decisions. This does not require separate approval of every sourced finding; follow the activity's specific review requirements.

Keep evidence and independent contributions distinct

Distinguish evidence, inference, and missing information. Check your work against the source material.

Use independent agents when your system actually supports delegation and independent investigation or review would improve the work:

• Give each agent a bounded brief and the context appropriate to its role.
• Keep discovery independent until synthesis where the activity requires it. Preserve any requirement for the user or colleagues to contribute before seeing other explanations.
• Follow the activity's stated fallback and any required confirmation when independent agents or fresh contexts are unavailable. Preserve reviewer isolation where required; describe shared-context or sequential passes accurately.

Produce, check, and revise the result

Do the substantive investigation and production. Carry the activity through to the most complete, usable result within its scope, rather than ending with a plan or handing the main work back to the user. When missing information does not prevent useful work, proceed with clearly identified assumptions where the activity permits them.

Check the result against the activity's completion criteria. At each substantive delivery, state what is complete and any material unfinished work, assumptions, helpful missing information, and remaining uncertainty. Explain how these affect what the user can use, and help the user revise the result.

Preserve the activity's stopping point. Do not turn a rehearsal, investigation, or test-design activity into execution that the user has not authorized.

Your AI prompt

Help me anticipate the hardest questions about my presentation from the people deciding on it. This may be a board or another group with decision-making power. Do the research and preparation yourself. Ask one focused question at a time when you need my input.

1. Establish the meeting and audience.

Identify the organization, meeting, and decision from available context. Inspect accessible materials for previous minutes or transcripts and attendee information. Search official company and investor-relations pages for the board or relevant leadership group, biographies, and any published meeting records. Use earnings calls and other public discussions to understand corporate concerns; distinguish management's or analysts' remarks from individual board members' views.

Try available sources before asking for missing information. If private records are inaccessible, ask for relevant documents or a spoken account. Show me the attendee list and ask me to confirm or correct it. If you cannot find the people, ask for their names. Wait for a confirmed audience before constructing individual profiles.

2. Understand the group and each person.

Identify the organization's strategic priorities and concerns. For every attendee, research their role, professional background and qualifications, relevant experience, and documented interests or prior questions. Consider useful questions suggested by experience in law, accounting, engineering, marketing, or another field without assuming a profession determines someone's views.

Use observed meeting behavior or my account to describe questioning style and temperament where supported. Do not invent personality types from biographies. Distinguish documented concerns, my descriptions, and working hypotheses. Where evidence is thin, use a clearly labeled perspective based on their role. Produce a concise profile for every person to guide the exercise.

3. Understand the presentation.

Read my deck or other material in full. If none is supplied, ask me to describe what I will present. Establish the proposal, decision or support sought, claims and evidence, benefits, resource requirements, and assumptions. Ask about omissions that materially affect the exercise. Summarize the proposal and resolve important misunderstandings before testing it against the audience.

4. Examine it through every attendee's perspective.

For each person, walk through the proposal and supporting material using their profile. Generate questions about claims, omissions, assumptions, tradeoffs, and implications relevant to that perspective. Link each question to the material that triggers it and why it matters to the decision. Include uncomfortable questions exposing weak reasoning or missing evidence. These are plausible preparation questions, not predictions of what a real person will say.

Repeat for every attendee. Consolidate duplicate or overlapping questions while preserving distinct concerns. Rank questions by difficulty of answering convincingly and the consequence of an inadequate answer for approval. Identify which perspectives raised them and what adequate answers must establish.

5. Develop answers and resolve substantive gaps.

Present the ranked questions. Offer to help develop answers and, if I want, rebuild the presentation around what we have learned. Wait for my choice before proceeding.

If I accept help with either, work through the questions in priority order. Distinguish questions we can answer by making existing material clearer from those that expose missing evidence, an unsupported assumption, or a weakness in the proposal itself. Locate the relevant evidence, draft a direct answer, and explain what remains unresolved. Research factual gaps using accessible sources and ask me for essential information you cannot obtain. Keep the research and drafting with you.

For each substantive gap, explain what would resolve it: additional evidence, a change to the proposal, a narrower claim, or a decision from me. Recommend a concrete response and work through it with me. Wait for my agreement before changing the substance of my proposal.

• Check that each answer addresses the actual question rather than merely sounding reassuring.

• Keep a record linking each major concern to its answer, evidence, and any remaining issue.

If I choose answers only, deliver the answer set with the unresolved issues clearly identified.

If I choose a revised presentation, continue once we have resolved the gaps that determine its central argument, or agreed how to present the remaining uncertainty honestly.

6. Propose a revised argument for this audience.

Establish the available presentation time and any required format or content. Using the audience profiles, our answers, and the agreed proposal, state the central argument in one clear sentence. Then propose the sequence: what these people need to understand first, why the proposal matters to their priorities, what evidence supports it, which objections need direct treatment, and what decision the ending should request.

Explain how the new sequence addresses the hardest questions. Decide which answers belong in the main narrative, which need supporting slides in an appendix, and which are better prepared for discussion. Account for differing concerns across the group while keeping one coherent argument. Show me the proposed narrative and slide outline, explain the consequential changes, and wait for my agreement or corrections before rebuilding the deck.

7. Rebuild the presentation slide by slide.

Use the agreed outline to create the actual presentation. Inspect your available editing and creation tools, then do the writing, editing, and production yourself. For each slide, write a title that states its point, the necessary content, and speaker notes where useful. Choose or create a visual, chart, or concise comparison when it makes the argument easier to understand. Use verified data for charts and retain source references and qualifications that matter.

• Cut repetition and unnecessary detail.

• Combine, split, or replace slides so each advances the argument and the audience can absorb it while listening.

• Move reference material into a usable appendix.

• Build the requested decision into the ending.

Prepare a companion question-and-answer brief with direct answers, supporting evidence, and the relevant main or appendix slides, including questions best handled in discussion.

Create an edited deck where your tools permit. If this environment cannot produce the file, investigate a practical route to one that can. Deliver complete replacement slide content, visual specifications, speaker notes, appendix content, and the question-and-answer brief, along with the specific handoff or user action needed to create the file. Make clear when the presentation file itself remains unbuilt.

8. Test the rebuilt presentation and revise it.

Read the revised presentation again through every confirmed attendee's perspective. For each major original concern, check whether the deck or prepared answer now addresses it convincingly and identify the relevant evidence. Look for new questions created by the revisions. Update the question-and-answer brief and fix weaknesses you can resolve from the agreed proposal and available evidence. Bring any remaining substantive decisions to me instead of changing the proposal silently.

Inspect the actual rendered slides where possible. Check that the titles and transitions carry the argument, visuals and text are legible, individual slides are not overcrowded, the presentation fits the available time, and the final request is clear. Verify that revised claims and figures remain faithful to their sources.

After changes, recheck the affected slides and audience concerns.

Deliver the finished presentation, its appendix, and the question-and-answer brief. Explain what substantive issues still need my judgment and what you were able to inspect or test. Ask what still misses my intention, make the requested revisions, and repeat the relevant checks.

Done when

You have challenging questions grounded in your presentation and actual audience, ranked by difficulty. If you choose to develop answers, you have supported responses with unresolved gaps identified. If you choose a rebuild, you have a revised presentation, appendix, and question-and-answer brief checked against the audience’s concerns—or complete replacement content with the specific step needed to create the presentation file.

These instructions were written in September 2026 using the frontier models available at the time. You may now have better tools or models, or restrictions that make some tasks harder. Your AI should adapt to the tools and access you actually have and find the best available way to help. Everything here is a starting suggestion for you and your AI, not a proven best practice for every setup. Feel free to rewrite any of it to better meet your needs.