AI inbox triage: leave only what actually needs a human

I'm attaching a list of 60 emails from the last two weeks —
for each one, the sender, subject, and first two sentences.
Names and companies are anonymized.

Help me set up triage by ACTION, not by topic.
Return:

1. A sort of all 60 messages into these categories: reply
   today, delegate, read, archive. For each message, the
   reason in one word.
2. Messages that didn't fit any category, and a suggestion
   for what to do with them — either where they belong or
   why I need a fifth category.
3. For each category, write a three-to-five-sentence
   definition that automatic triage will use. The definition
   has to be decision-ready: what signal identifies the
   message, what sets it apart from the neighboring
   category, and one borderline example from my list.
4. Three category pairs that will most often get confused,
   and a rule that resolves the tie.
5. How many messages from my sample would stay in the
   main inbox.

For point 3, don't write generic definitions like "important
messages" — write them so that someone who doesn't know my
job could decide correctly from them.

I have [2000] messages older than [14 days] sitting in my
main inbox. I don't want to sort them one by one and I don't
want to delete anything.

Suggest a one-time cleanup in steps:
1. Which groups of messages can be moved in bulk without
   reading them (by age, sender, domain, bulk-mail header)
   and where to. For each group, estimate how many messages
   that is.
2. Which ones, on the other hand, I need to look at with my
   own eyes because they might contain unfinished business —
   and how do I filter for them to keep that number as low
   as possible.
3. What search queries to use for this in [Gmail /
   Outlook], write them exactly as I could paste them in.
4. What order to do the steps in so they don't overlap.
5. What to do at the end so the old mail stays searchable
   but doesn't get mixed up with the new triage.

No step may involve deletion. Where you're not sure about
a count, say so instead of a number.

Here's an export of my current mail filters and rules:
[insert list]

And here are 40 messages from the last week that got past
them into the main inbox:
[insert sender, subject, first two sentences]

Do an analysis:
1. Which of those 40 messages would a plain rule have caught?
   For each, write the specific condition (sender, domain,
   text in subject, bulk-mail header) and the target folder.
2. Which ones, on the other hand, require judging the
   content and can't be sorted by a rule? For each, say
   exactly what would have to decide it.
3. Which of my existing rules overlap or contradict
   each other.
4. Which rules are too broad and risk catching something
   they shouldn't.

Don't propose new rules for messages from specific people
whose content varies — a rule doesn't belong there.

Help me build an escalation list for the automatic triage
of my mail — recipients and situations that triage must never
touch a message for.

Context: [role], [industry], [company size].
Who I report to: [manager's role].
My key counterparts: [3–5 types, not names].
What can't tolerate delay in my work: [description].

Return:
1. A list of sender categories that belong on the escalation
   list, and one sentence for each explaining why.
2. Situations recognizable by content, not by sender
   (escalation, complaint, deadline today, approval
   request) — for each, say what signal identifies it.
3. Rule wording I can paste into the routine's instructions.
   Write it as a prohibition in the imperative, not as advice.
4. Three situations where the list could end up too broad
   and triage would lose its point.
5. How often I should review the list and what should
   trigger a review (a role change, a new client, an
   ended engagement).

Don't write specific people's names into the output, I'll
fill those in myself.

Every workday at [12:30], sort my mail.
Follow this exactly and don't make anything up:

1. SCOPE
Take messages delivered to the main inbox since the last run
(at most 24 hours back). Don't touch the [HR, Legal]
folders, or messages older than 24 hours.

2. ESCALATION RULE — TAKES PRIORITY OVER EVERYTHING ELSE
Messages from [list of addresses and domains], and messages
that look like an escalation, a complaint, an approval
request, or a deadline within 24 hours, must be LEFT IN THE
MAIN INBOX unlabeled. Don't move them, even if their content
looks like another category. Just list them in the summary.

3. SORTING
Sort the remaining messages into one category per the
attached definitions: reply today / delegate / read / archive.
- leave "reply today" in the main inbox
- move everything else to the folder with the matching name
- decide the category by what ACTION the message requires,
  not by its topic
- for threads, decide based on the last message, not the first
- never put a message that contains a question addressed
  to me, anywhere in the text, into "archive"

4. UNCERTAINTY
When you're not sure how to classify something, DON'T GUESS.
Move the message to the [Review Sorting] folder and, in the
summary, note which two categories you were torn between and
why. More uncertainty flagged is better than a silent mistake.

5. PROHIBITIONS
Don't delete anything, don't archive anything permanently,
don't mark anything as read, don't reply to anything, don't
send anything. Only move messages and apply labels.

6. SUMMARY
Write an overview, up to [5] lines per category:
- how many messages in each category; for "reply today"
  list the sender and topic
- what fell under the escalation rule
- what ended up in [Review Sorting] and why
- which definitions weren't enough to decide with

Trial triage run — today, don't move anything, don't label
anything, don't change anything. Just propose a classification
and show me your reasoning.

Go through the messages from the last 24 hours in the main
inbox and return a table:
sender | subject | proposed category | confidence
(high/medium/low) | what you decided it on
(a specific word or sentence from the message, not a
general reason) | falls under the escalation rule yes/no

Below the table, write:
1. which messages had low confidence and what you were missing
2. two messages you're still not sure about even now,
   and how you'd classify them on a second look
3. which of my definitions turned out unclear in practice
   — quote the specific wording that didn't help
4. how many messages would be left in the main inbox
   per your proposal

Don't inflate your confidence. "Medium" is a legitimate answer.

Audit your own triage for this week. You have access to my
mail, so compare what you filed with what I actually did
about it.

Return:

1. FALSE POSITIVES — messages you moved out of the main
   inbox that I then pulled back out, replied to, or opened
   within [24 hours]. For each, write: sender, topic, where
   you put it, why you thought it belonged there, and what
   you should have recognized instead.
2. LEFT UNNECESSARILY — messages that stayed in the main
   inbox and I just moved elsewhere without replying. For
   each, what rule is missing.
3. UNCERTAINTY — the contents of the [Review Sorting]
   folder: where they ended up belonging and what you were
   missing to decide.
4. PATTERNS — are the mistakes random, or do they repeat
   for a certain type of message, sender, or wording? List
   at most three patterns, with two examples each.
5. ESCALATION — did you touch anything on the escalation
   list? If so, list it first, even if it's a single message.

Be critical of your own work and don't tell me it went well.
Where you don't have enough data to conclude something,
say so instead of guessing.

Here are the findings from this week's triage audit:
[insert audit output]

And here are my current category definitions and escalation list:
[insert]

Propose specific changes:
1. For each recurring mistake, say whether the problem is
   in the category definition, in the escalation list, or
   whether a plain filter is missing — and so where the
   fix belongs.
2. Rewrite the affected definitions. Show the old and new
   version side by side and say what changed in one sentence.
3. Check that the new definitions don't contradict the rest
   or overlap with each other.
4. Flag rules that never came into play over the past
   month and suggest cutting them.

Don't add rules for the sake of adding them — when the same
thing can be solved by editing an existing definition, do that.
Keep the whole set of definitions to one page.

Prepare the material for my quarterly triage routine review.
Don't change anything, just report the current state:

1. Which services and data you have access to, and what of
   that you actually use for triage.
2. Which folders and labels the routine created or changed
   over the past quarter.
3. Which folders it excludes, and whether that list matches
   my rules — list the differences, not the matches.
4. Everything you process from message content during
   triage, and which of that shows up in summaries.
5. Which categories were barely used over the quarter and
   could be dropped.
6. Three questions I should ask myself during this review
   that you're not able to answer for me.

Where you're not sure, write "I don't know" instead of guessing.