Game out a new regulation’s long-term consequences.
A new rule changes more than compliance paperwork. It can change what customers buy, which suppliers become useful and where competitors see an opening. Follow those reactions far enough to discover a strategic consequence you might otherwise miss.
Try it now
Copy the prompt into your AI tool of choice, then answer its questions as they come.
Paste it into any AI chat to start. For most people, this is all you need.
Everything on this page in one paste: the prompt plus the full plan, every step and what to check. Use it for longer moves, to plan ahead, to share with a colleague, or if your AI can't open links.
How it goes
What the AI will do
- Read the actual rule and investigate how it touches your business and its counterparties.
- Trace plausible reactions and longer-term consequences through separate evidence-informed perspectives, then challenge the conclusions.
What to have ready
- The regulation, announcement or issue, and the business you want to examine.
- Available exposure records, contracts, policy discussions and company context; the AI searches relevant connections first.
Where you come in
- Clarify the business scope, time horizon and any material uncertainty the record cannot resolve.
- Judge the strategic choices emerging from the analysis.
What you'll get
A source-linked consequence map and strategic brief separating current requirements, plausible responses and uncertain longer-term effects.
You're done when
A source-linked consequence map and strategic brief separating current requirements, plausible responses and uncertain longer-term effects.
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. ### Establish the actual change Help me game out the longer-term consequences of a new regulation for this business. Begin with what the rule actually changes, then investigate how people and organizations might adapt. Distinguish a legal requirement from a plausible behavioral response and a speculative consequence throughout. Find the original text, official explanatory material, jurisdiction, issuing authority, status and relevant dates. Check whether it is proposed, adopted, in force, phased in, amended, stayed or otherwise changed. Read the provisions relevant to our activity, definitions, scope, exceptions and referenced guidance. Link to the actual official sources and record the date checked. Do not infer applicability from a headline or treat publication date as the effective date. Inspect available company connections and search policy discussions, regulatory correspondence, contracts, process descriptions, customer and supplier records, strategy documents, relevant emails, chats and meeting transcripts using the rule’s terms, business activities and affected locations. Establish what the company actually does, which entities or operations may be affected and what internal analysis already exists. Identify material disagreements rather than flattening them into a consensus. Ask one focused question if the company scope, jurisdiction or intended decision is unclear. Investigate missing connection/export routes first. If the text or exposure records cannot be obtained, state which conclusions remain conditional; a short public announcement cannot support a complete applicability determination. Continue independent work while awaiting a necessary answer. This is strategic analysis, not a definitive legal opinion; identify specific legal interpretations that need a qualified adviser. ### Trace direct effects before downstream reactions Create a brief baseline of the relevant current business arrangement: who sells, buys, supplies, pays, approves and competes. Use recorded roles and documented concerns. Explain the direct changes the rule appears to require or enable, with the affected party, provision, timing and dependency. Separate confirmed company exposure from possible exposure that needs clarification. Identify the few direct effects worth tracing: changes in costs, information access, permissible products, procurement, timing, barriers to entry, accountability or another mechanism supported by the text. Ask about the useful planning horizon if it remains unknown. Preserve alternative legal interpretations where they lead to meaningfully different paths rather than choose one silently. ### Explore independent responses Select materially different perspectives relevant to the change: customers, suppliers, current rivals, new entrants, employees, regulators or partners. Search their public statements, filings, actual correspondence and industry records for expressed objectives, constraints and prior responses to analogous changes. Historical analogies can suggest mechanisms; explain where the situations differ. Where separate agents are available, assign each a bounded perspective with the verified rule summary, exposure evidence, source references, uncertainties and time horizon. Ask it to describe plausible responses, incentives, operational constraints and evidence that would contradict its account. Keep first responses independent before synthesis; do not tell all agents the same preferred story. Divide oversized source sets into manageable assignments and track coverage. Without agents, use distinct sequential passes and disclose the shared context. An agent’s response is an analytical hypothesis, not the actual judgment of a named person or organization. Do not manufacture consultations or official interpretations. Have agents request missing evidence rather than fill a gap with confident dialogue. ### Follow the consequences and challenge the chain Bring the perspectives together. For each promising chain, show the initial rule change, immediate adaptation, response by another party and resulting strategic consequence. Explain the mechanism connecting each link and the conditions needed for it to occur. Look for feedback loops, delays, substitutions, avoidance behavior, concentration or new opportunities where relevant. Include at least one credible alternative path for a consequential forecast. Distinguish effects likely across several paths from effects depending on a fragile assumption. Do not present more steps in a chain as greater certainty. Quantify only with identifiable inputs, units and justified assumptions; use qualitative conditions when numerical precision would mislead. Give a separate reviewer the actual consequence map, official text and necessary business evidence without your defense of the story. Ask it to find mistaken requirements, unsupported jumps, missing affected parties, contradictions and timing errors. Reconcile material findings, verify disputed sources and recheck corrections. If independent review is unavailable, label your additional pass honestly. ### Deliver choices and signals Write a clear strategic brief: what changed, which direct effects matter here, the most plausible longer-term consequences, credible alternatives and what could change the assessment. Keep citations and confidence beside the claims they qualify. Include the consequence map when it makes the chain easier to inspect. Identify actions robust across plausible outcomes, choices that depend on a particular path, early signals to monitor and the specific unresolved legal or company questions. Discuss decisions with me; do not turn proposed responses into approved company policy. Finish with a useful analysis and concrete next questions, not a claim that the future has been predicted or compliance established. 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.
View full AI instructions
Game out a new regulation’s long-term consequences.
What the AI will do
- Read the actual rule and investigate how it touches your business and its counterparties.
- Trace plausible reactions and longer-term consequences through separate evidence-informed perspectives, then challenge the conclusions.
What you can provide
- The regulation, announcement or issue, and the business you want to examine.
- Available exposure records, contracts, policy discussions and company context; the AI searches relevant connections first.
Where you'll take part
- Clarify the business scope, time horizon and any material uncertainty the record cannot resolve.
- Judge the strategic choices emerging from the analysis.
What you'll get
A source-linked consequence map and strategic brief separating current requirements, plausible responses and uncertain longer-term effects.
Activity context
A new rule changes more than compliance paperwork. It can change what customers buy, which suppliers become useful and where competitors see an opening. Follow those reactions far enough to discover a strategic consequence you might otherwise miss.
For the user
Share the rule or describe the change. The AI checks the official text and your relevant business context before tracing consequences. You supply judgment where the sources cannot settle a choice, rather than preparing a regulatory research packet.
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
Establish the actual change
Help me game out the longer-term consequences of a new regulation for this business. Begin with what the rule actually changes, then investigate how people and organizations might adapt. Distinguish a legal requirement from a plausible behavioral response and a speculative consequence throughout.
Find the original text, official explanatory material, jurisdiction, issuing authority, status and relevant dates. Check whether it is proposed, adopted, in force, phased in, amended, stayed or otherwise changed. Read the provisions relevant to our activity, definitions, scope, exceptions and referenced guidance. Link to the actual official sources and record the date checked. Do not infer applicability from a headline or treat publication date as the effective date.
Inspect available company connections and search policy discussions, regulatory correspondence, contracts, process descriptions, customer and supplier records, strategy documents, relevant emails, chats and meeting transcripts using the rule’s terms, business activities and affected locations. Establish what the company actually does, which entities or operations may be affected and what internal analysis already exists. Identify material disagreements rather than flattening them into a consensus.
Ask one focused question if the company scope, jurisdiction or intended decision is unclear. Investigate missing connection/export routes first. If the text or exposure records cannot be obtained, state which conclusions remain conditional; a short public announcement cannot support a complete applicability determination. Continue independent work while awaiting a necessary answer. This is strategic analysis, not a definitive legal opinion; identify specific legal interpretations that need a qualified adviser.
Trace direct effects before downstream reactions
Create a brief baseline of the relevant current business arrangement: who sells, buys, supplies, pays, approves and competes. Use recorded roles and documented concerns. Explain the direct changes the rule appears to require or enable, with the affected party, provision, timing and dependency. Separate confirmed company exposure from possible exposure that needs clarification.
Identify the few direct effects worth tracing: changes in costs, information access, permissible products, procurement, timing, barriers to entry, accountability or another mechanism supported by the text. Ask about the useful planning horizon if it remains unknown. Preserve alternative legal interpretations where they lead to meaningfully different paths rather than choose one silently.
Explore independent responses
Select materially different perspectives relevant to the change: customers, suppliers, current rivals, new entrants, employees, regulators or partners. Search their public statements, filings, actual correspondence and industry records for expressed objectives, constraints and prior responses to analogous changes. Historical analogies can suggest mechanisms; explain where the situations differ.
Where separate agents are available, assign each a bounded perspective with the verified rule summary, exposure evidence, source references, uncertainties and time horizon. Ask it to describe plausible responses, incentives, operational constraints and evidence that would contradict its account. Keep first responses independent before synthesis; do not tell all agents the same preferred story. Divide oversized source sets into manageable assignments and track coverage. Without agents, use distinct sequential passes and disclose the shared context.
An agent’s response is an analytical hypothesis, not the actual judgment of a named person or organization. Do not manufacture consultations or official interpretations. Have agents request missing evidence rather than fill a gap with confident dialogue.
Follow the consequences and challenge the chain
Bring the perspectives together. For each promising chain, show the initial rule change, immediate adaptation, response by another party and resulting strategic consequence. Explain the mechanism connecting each link and the conditions needed for it to occur. Look for feedback loops, delays, substitutions, avoidance behavior, concentration or new opportunities where relevant.
Include at least one credible alternative path for a consequential forecast. Distinguish effects likely across several paths from effects depending on a fragile assumption. Do not present more steps in a chain as greater certainty. Quantify only with identifiable inputs, units and justified assumptions; use qualitative conditions when numerical precision would mislead.
Give a separate reviewer the actual consequence map, official text and necessary business evidence without your defense of the story. Ask it to find mistaken requirements, unsupported jumps, missing affected parties, contradictions and timing errors. Reconcile material findings, verify disputed sources and recheck corrections. If independent review is unavailable, label your additional pass honestly.
Deliver choices and signals
Write a clear strategic brief: what changed, which direct effects matter here, the most plausible longer-term consequences, credible alternatives and what could change the assessment. Keep citations and confidence beside the claims they qualify. Include the consequence map when it makes the chain easier to inspect.
Identify actions robust across plausible outcomes, choices that depend on a particular path, early signals to monitor and the specific unresolved legal or company questions. Discuss decisions with me; do not turn proposed responses into approved company policy. Finish with a useful analysis and concrete next questions, not a claim that the future has been predicted or compliance established.
Done when
A source-linked consequence map and strategic brief separating current requirements, plausible responses and uncertain longer-term effects.
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.
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.