NotebookLM: an AI that only knows your documents

Give me an inventory of the uploaded sources. For each source list:
- the file name and, in one sentence, what it's about
- the document type (lecture notes, slides, contract, policy,
  transcript, article, web page)
- roughly how long it is and how detailed (overview vs. detail)
- text quality: is it fully readable, or are there passages
  that don't make sense, are missing, or look like a badly
  recognized scan

At the end, write two things:
1. Which sources overlap in content
2. Which sources are not actually related to [notebook topic]

Go through all uploaded sources and build a content map of the
whole notebook:

1. The main topics that appear across the sources — rank them
   by how much space the materials give each one
2. For each topic, which sources cover it and how thoroughly
   (one mention / a whole chapter)
3. Topics that appear in only one source
4. Topics where the sources reinforce each other — and topics
   where they appear to contradict each other

Don't add anything that isn't in the uploaded sources. Where
you're not sure, say so instead of guessing.

Take ONLY the source [file name] and turn it into a structured
breakdown:
- what the document is about, in 5 sentences
- the main claims or provisions, each with a reference to
  where it appears in the document
- passages that are ambiguously worded or contradict each other
- terms the document uses but doesn't define
- what's missing from the document by its own logic (refers to
  an appendix that isn't there, cites a clause it doesn't
  include, etc.)

Draw exclusively from this one source. Ignore everything else.

Compare how [topic or term] is handled across all uploaded
sources.

Build a table: source | how it describes it | exact wording
(short quote) | how it differs from the others.

Below the table, write:
- where all the sources agree
- where they directly diverge, and on what exactly
- which source is the most detailed on this question
- which of these versions I should treat as authoritative,
  and why (if that's determinable from the sources — if not,
  say so)

I'm about to [take an exam in this subject / sign this
contract / take over this role / write a research paper on
this topic] — context: [one to three sentences about the
situation].

List 15 questions I'll need answered in this situation, and
split them into three groups:
A) the uploaded sources answer these clearly — for each, give
   the answer and its source
B) the sources answer these only partly or ambiguously — write
   what's there and what's missing
C) the sources don't answer these at all — write where I
   should look for the answer instead

Don't fill in group-C answers from general knowledge.

From chapters [3 through 5] of the uploaded lecture notes,
write me 30 practice exam questions.

Split them into three levels:
- 10 recall questions (definitions, lists, values)
- 10 comprehension questions (explain the mechanism, why it
  works this way)
- 10 application questions (a scenario where the material
  gets applied)

For each question, give: the correct answer per the lecture
notes, a reference to the page or chapter, and for application
questions, a typical mistake people make on it.

Word the questions the way an examiner would, not like a quiz.
Only ask about what's in the uploaded materials.

Explain [topic / term / mechanism] to me the way my uploaded
materials present it. Go through it like this:

1. First, in one sentence, what it is
2. Then in detail, but in plain everyday language — as if
   explaining it to someone who just started the subject
3. Then exactly the way the lecture notes phrase it, with a
   citation
4. Finally: where my simplified explanation differs from the
   lecture notes' wording, and what I shouldn't say at the exam

If the materials only cover the topic superficially, say so
and don't add anything that isn't in them.

Build me a study summary of [topic] from the whole notebook,
structured like this:

## What I need to know
bullet points with key facts, each with a source reference

## How it all connects
relationships between concepts, not just a list of them

## Common mix-ups
pairs of concepts people confuse, and how to tell them apart

## Where it is in the sources
chapters and pages to return to for detail

Write it dense, no intros, no summaries. It should fit on two
pages.

Generate an audio overview focused like this:

Audience: [a student before an exam / a colleague taking over
a project / company leadership]
Goal of listening: [understand the main topics before reading
in detail / know what I might get asked / make a decision]

Focus on:
- [topic A], [topic B] — cover these in depth
- connections between topics, not lists of facts
- places where the sources disagree

Skip: [general intros, the history of the field, motivational
filler].
Keep the tone factual, no joking around. Length around
[15] minutes.

Go through the uploaded documentation and find inconsistencies
in it:

1. Places where two documents describe the same thing
   differently — for each, give both versions and their sources
2. Procedures that reference a document, form, or system that
   isn't among the uploaded sources
3. Steps where it's not stated who does them or who approves
   them
4. Passages that look outdated (reference tools, roles, or
   deadlines that don't hold elsewhere)

For each finding, note what it's about and where in the
documentation it is. Don't fix it, just list it.

The uploaded documents are [vendor contracts / terms and
conditions]. Build a comparison table from them.

Table: document | term length | notice period | how automatic
renewal works | penalties and their amounts | who can
unilaterally change terms | governing law and jurisdiction.

Where a term is missing from the contract, write “not
specified” — don't fill it in from general legal knowledge.

Below the table, list:
- the contracts that differ most from the others, to our
  disadvantage
- clauses I don't understand even after reading them and
  need a lawyer for
- deadlines these contracts create for the next 12 months

I'm new in the role of [role] and was given these materials.
Build me an orientation plan for the first two weeks:

1. What to read, in what order, and why (reference specific
   sources)
2. 10 things I need to know on day one
3. Processes my role is part of — for each, my role in it and
   who it hands off to
4. Abbreviations, internal terms, and system names that appear
   in the materials without explanation
5. Questions the materials don't answer and I need to ask a
   person — ranked by urgency

Draw only from the uploaded materials.

I'm attaching a verified excerpt from source material. Every
claim in it is backed by a citation from sources I have access
to.

[paste the excerpt including citations]

Turn this into [a meeting brief / a chapter / an email to a
client / a 10-slide presentation] for the audience [who] with
the goal [what the audience should do or understand].

Rules:
- use only claims from the attached excerpt
- don't add anything from your own knowledge, even things that
  are common knowledge
- keep citations attached to the claims they belong to
- where you're missing material for a smooth transition, write
  TODO: [what's needed] on its own line instead of filling
  the gap