Show AI a sample: the complete guide to working with examples

Here's an older [set of meeting notes] of mine that has
exactly the shape I want:

--- EXAMPLE ---
[paste the whole finished document]
--- END OF EXAMPLE ---

And here's the new material for today:

--- MATERIAL ---
[paste transcript / notes / bullet points]
--- END OF MATERIAL ---

Produce a new [document] from the material, in the same
structure, length, and tone as the example. Rules:
- structure, section order, and phrasing style are taken
  from the example,
- all content comes exclusively from the material,
- no specific detail from the example (names, dates, numbers,
  projects) may appear in the new document,
- where the material has nothing for a section, keep the
  heading and write “no record” under it — don't invent
  anything,
- keep each section's length roughly matching the example.

Here's my [document type], which I want to use as a format
sample when working with AI. I need a safe version of it.

[paste document]

Replace all sensitive and identifying details with made-up
values:
- names of people, companies, projects, and products,
- email addresses, phone numbers, contract and order numbers,
- specific amounts and revenue figures (keep the same order
  of magnitude),
- internal abbreviations and system names.

Replacement rules:
- the replacement must match the original's shape and length,
- replace the same detail the same way everywhere in the
  document,
- structure, phrasing, tone, and length stay unchanged — don't
  edit the text in any other way,
- at the end, list a table: what was replaced with what, and
  how many times.

If you're not sure whether a detail is sensitive, replace it
anyway and note it in the table.

Here are three of my [document type] from different periods:

--- EXAMPLE 1 ---
[paste]
--- EXAMPLE 2 ---
[paste]
--- EXAMPLE 3 ---
[paste]

Don't write anything yet, just analyze them. Give me:
1. What all three have in common — structure, section order,
   typical lengths, heading format, how dates and numbers are
   written.
2. What differs between them — i.e. what's the variable that
   changes from case to case.
3. Vocabulary: which words and phrasings I use repeatedly, and
   which I never use (typical substitutions).
4. Register: formal or informal you, person, level of
   politeness, sentence length.
5. Things that look like a rule but might be coincidence — mark
   them separately so I can confirm or reject them.

Output as a list of rules, each one sentence, in the
imperative, so it can be used as an instruction.

I want to turn my material into a table. Here's the format,
shown as one finished row including the header:

Project | Status | Due | Owner | Risk (1-3) | Note
Website migration | in progress | 3/14 | J. Smith | 2 | waiting on copy from client

Rules that aren't visible from the example alone:
- Status can only be: in progress / waiting / done / stopped.
- Due: month/day format, no year, “—” for anything undated.
- Owner: first initial and last name.
- Risk: 1 is low, 3 is high; if the material gives no basis
  for it, write “?” and don't guess.
- Note: 8 words maximum, factual, no judgment calls.
- Sort descending by risk, then by date within ties.

Material:
[paste notes, meeting minutes, emails]

Return just the table, no commentary before or after. Don't
fill in what isn't in the material — leave “?” and add a list
of what's missing at the end.

Here are two of my older sets of meeting notes. I want a new
set of notes in the same shape.

--- NOTES A ---
[paste]
--- NOTES B ---
[paste]

--- MATERIAL FOR THE NEW NOTES ---
[paste transcript or notes]

Requirements:
- Structure, headings, and how action items are written,
  exactly as in A and B.
- Write action items in the same shape as the examples (who,
  what, by when) and only include ones that were actually
  stated as a commitment in the material, not as an idea.
- Summarize the discussion, don't transcribe it — keep the
  same length ratio as the examples.
- Where the material is missing a deadline or an owner, write
  “not agreed” instead of guessing.
- Don't mention anything that isn't in the material, and no
  general conclusions.
- At the end, add a “to verify” section with points where you
  weren't sure what was said in the transcript.

Write an email. Take the tone and length from this sample of
mine — it's an email to a similar recipient in a similar
situation:

--- SAMPLE ---
[paste your own email, ideally 10-20 lines]
--- END OF SAMPLE ---

New email:
- To: [role and relationship, e.g. a long-standing client,
  formal you]
- Situation: [what happened]
- What I want the recipient to do: [specific step and
  deadline]
- Facts that must appear: [list]
- What must not be mentioned: [list]

Rules:
- Length at most that of the sample, shorter is fine.
- Subject line in the same style as the sample.
- No apologetic filler and no promises not backed by the
  facts.
- Take the signature and greeting from the sample.

Write the email directly, no commentary. Then, separately,
write what the recipient might understand differently than I
intend.

Here are three of my posts on [platform] that performed well:

--- POST 1 ---
[paste]
--- POST 2 ---
[paste]
--- POST 3 ---
[paste]

Write a new post derived from them on this topic:
[topic and the key piece of information it must contain]

Stick to what my posts have in common:
- the same opening-sentence structure,
- the same length (stay within the range of my three posts,
  by character count),
- the same treatment of line breaks,
- the same number and style of hashtags, or none at all,
- the same level of emoji use as my posts, not more.

Don't use phrasing that isn't in my posts (no “and that's not
all,” “game changer,” or similar). Don't copy specific numbers
or examples from my posts.

Write three variants that differ only in the opening sentence,
keep the rest the same.

I need to set up a sample for [document type], but I don't
have a finished one. Produce a draft I'll correct.

Context:
- Who reads it: [role, how much time they have, what they'll
  do with it]
- What it's for: [purpose]
- How often it's produced: [frequency]
- What must always be in it: [list]
- What must never be in it: [list]
- How long it should be: [range]

Produce two versions on made-up but realistic data: one
shorter, one more detailed. For each one, explain in three
points why the structure is what it is and what would happen
if I dropped a given section.

Use [informal/formal you] and [first person/neutral phrasing].

Here's my reference sample and here's an output produced from
it. Compare them and return an overview of deviations.

--- SAMPLE ---
[paste]
--- OUTPUT ---
[paste]

List in four groups:
1. Structural deviations: missing or extra sections, different
   order, different heading levels.
2. Formatting deviations: different way of writing dates,
   numbers, names, units, different bullet style, different
   paragraph length (say by how much).
3. Vocabulary and tone deviations: words and phrases the
   sample doesn't use, a shift in person or level of
   politeness.
4. Content in the output that has no basis in the material —
   especially numbers, deadlines, and commitments.

For each deviation, cite the passage and add one sentence on
whether it's a problem or just an allowed variation. Don't fix
anything.

I gave you this sample:
[paste sample]

And this instruction:
[paste instruction]

Before you write anything: list every place where the sample
and the instruction contradict each other. For each conflict,
say what the sample implies, what the instruction says, and
which one you'd lean toward if I didn't decide.

Then ask me to decide on the conflicts that change the result
the most. Only write the text after I answer.