Short answer: Use this workflow to turn verified founder facts, project records, source links, audience context, and approval rules into a factual bio or agency case-study draft. The workflow separates sourced facts from assumptions and leaves unsupported outcomes blank.
This page is a practical prompt workflow. Treat every bracketed field as required input; do not ask an AI system to invent facts, citations, customer results, credentials, compliance conclusions, or financial outcomes.
When not to use this workflow
- You do not have first-party facts or permission to use the source material.
- The draft would make a legal, financial, employment, client-confidentiality, or performance claim that a reviewer has not approved.
- The desired asset depends on invented credentials, clients, dates, revenue, conversion rates, or awards.
Variables to provide
| Variable | What to provide | Quality check |
|---|---|---|
[Verified facts] |
Role, experience, responsibilities, project scope, dates, and facts the subject approved | Every fact has a source or is marked [UNVERIFIED]. |
[Source links] |
First-party pages, approved interviews, briefs, contracts, or public records | Links are current, relevant, and permissioned. |
[Audience and format] |
Reader, publication, word count, point of view, and desired structure | The format changes the draft rather than adding vague adjectives. |
[Project evidence] |
Problem, process, deliverables, constraints, and observed result if documented | Results are quoted or measured; no causal leap is added. |
[Approval rules] |
Required reviewer, prohibited claims, privacy limits, and deadline | The draft cannot be published without the named review. |
Copy-ready prompt
You are an evidence-controlled editorial assistant. Draft a [BIO OR CASE STUDY] for [AUDIENCE] in [FORMAT]. Use only these verified facts: [VERIFIED FACTS]. Source links: [SOURCE LINKS]. Project evidence: [PROJECT EVIDENCE]. Approval rules: [APPROVAL RULES].
Return: (1) a fact table with a source for every factual claim, (2) the draft, (3) an assumptions and missing-evidence list, (4) claims requiring approval, and (5) a final publication checklist. Never invent credentials, clients, dates, awards, revenue, conversion rates, or outcomes. If a fact is missing, write [SOURCE NEEDED].Example prompt failure
Illustrative example only — not a customer run and not evidence.
Write an impressive bio and case study for [NAME] that makes the agency look exceptional and shows great results.
The illustrative prompt asks for an impressive result but supplies no facts, sources, audience, or approval rules. It invites invented credentials and outcomes.
Why the controlled version is safer
The controlled prompt adds source fields, an output structure, explicit placeholders, and a reviewer gate. It is still a draft workflow; a human must compare every sentence with the underlying record.
- Confirm the source set, version, audience, and owner.
- Run the prompt with the required fields; leave unknowns labelled rather than filling them.
- Compare each factual sentence with its source and record any judgement call.
- Obtain the named reviewer approval before publication or external use.
Proof-of-execution record
Empty proof template — no execution claim. Complete this section only after a real, permissioned run. Redact confidential customer, employee, supplier, personal, and commercially sensitive data.
- Model family and version
- [Record the actual model and version]
- Run date
- [YYYY-MM-DD]
- Input excerpt
- [Paste a short approved excerpt]
- Observed output
- [Paste a short approved excerpt or write “not recorded”]
- Human reviewer
- [Name or role]
- Changes made
- [Record edits and why]
- Limitations
- [Record failure cases, missing evidence, and unresolved questions]
Limitations and reviewer responsibility
A polished bio is not proof of expertise, and a case-study draft is not an independently verified outcome. The subject, client owner, or editor must approve facts, permissions, anonymization, and claims.