# Reconcile feedback from three readers: prompt chain Compare three readers' actual notes on a draft, find agreements and conflicts, and turn them into a revision plan without pretending that every comment can be followed at once. **Made for:** A writer or editor combining comments from a manager, a subject expert and the intended reader. ## Before you start Have these ready: - **Draft under review** (required): Paste the draft as all three people saw it. This is the text their comments should refer to. - **Three readers' notes** (required): Give each reader a label and paste their actual comments. If a reader made no comment on a point, do not invent one. - **What the draft must do** (required): Name the intended reader and the decision or action this draft supports. **How to use this chain** 1. Open a new chat in any AI assistant. 2. Copy the Step 1 prompt, replace every [PASTE HERE: ...] slot with your material, and send it. 3. Keep each answer: later steps ask you to paste it in. Run each step in the same chat or a new one; a new chat keeps steps from blurring together. 4. After a step that has a check, run the check before you move on. ## Step 1: Keep each reader's words separate Quote each distinct note and identify the part of the draft it concerns. Copy this prompt: ````text You are a careful editor recording feedback from three readers. Your task is to list each distinct comment from the readers' notes. Readers' notes: [PASTE HERE: Three readers' notes] Draft: [PASTE HERE: Draft under review] Rules: - Name the reader and quote the relevant comment word for word. Split a comment that asks for two changes into two rows. - Name the draft passage or section it concerns. If none is clear, write Whole draft. - Do not merge two readers into one voice. Do not infer what a silent reader wanted. Return one markdown table: | Reader | Comment (quote) | Draft part | ```` **You get back:** Each actual comment tied to its reader and a draft part. **Check after Step 1: Each comment quote appears in the readers' notes** Check by eye: Every quote in the Comment (quote) column appears word for word in the three readers' notes. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 2: Find agreements and conflicts Group notes about the same change and show where readers disagree or leave a gap. Copy this prompt: ````text You are an editor who reconciles feedback without voting by volume. Your task is to group comments about the same draft change and label the relationship between readers. Reader comments: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 1 (Keep each reader's words separate)] Draft purpose: [PASTE HERE: What the draft must do] Rules: - Use exactly agree, conflict or single in the Relationship column. - Agree means two or three readers seek compatible changes. Conflict means their requested changes cannot both be applied as stated. Single means only one reader raised the point. - Name the readers involved and keep their distinct reasons. Silence is not agreement. - Do not invent a consensus or choose a side yet. Return one markdown table: | Draft part | Readers and requests | Relationship | What needs deciding | ```` **You get back:** A grouped view of agreement, conflict and single-reader points. **Check after Step 2: Each group has a clear relationship** Check by eye: Every row of the table has one of "agree", "conflict" or "single" in the Relationship column. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 3: Plan the revision Decide which edit follows the draft purpose and which comment needs an answer. Copy this prompt: ````text You are the draft's editor preparing a revision plan. Your task is to choose a next move for each feedback group. Draft purpose: [PASTE HERE: What the draft must do] Draft: [PASTE HERE: Draft under review] Grouped feedback: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 2 (Find agreements and conflicts)] Original reader comments: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 1 (Keep each reader's words separate)] Rules: - Use exactly revise, ask or keep in the Decision column. - Revise only when the request fits the stated purpose and a concrete edit is possible. Ask when readers conflict or needed facts are missing. Keep when a requested change would undercut the purpose, and explain why. - Quote the draft words to change when there is a matching passage. Do not add facts that the draft or notes do not supply. - Give each reader's concern an answer, even when the edit is deferred. Return one markdown table: | Draft part | Decision | Proposed edit or question | Reader concern answered | ```` **You get back:** A revision plan with specific edits and open questions. **Check after Step 3: Each revision has a supported decision** Check by eye: Every row of the table has one of "revise", "ask" or "keep" in the Decision column. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 4: Write a short feedback response Summarize changes and explain unresolved comments to the three readers. Copy this prompt: ````text You are an editor replying to three people who reviewed a draft. Your task is to write a concise response based on the revision plan. Plan: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 3 (Plan the revision)] Readers' original notes: [PASTE HERE: Three readers' notes] Rules: - Say what will be revised, what remains a question, and what will be kept with a reason. - Where requests conflict, name the tradeoff and the decision needed. Do not say everyone agreed. - Do not claim an edit was made if the plan only proposes it. Do not invent a reader reaction. Return markdown with headings Planned revisions, Questions to resolve and Response to each reader. ```` **You get back:** A shareable response that keeps the decision and each reader's concern visible. **Check after Step 4: Open questions are visible in the response** Check by eye: The answer includes the words "Questions to resolve". If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Final checks Run these on the finished result. **Final check 1: Each reader's note has an answer** Open a new chat (so the check is not swayed by the work) and paste this check prompt: ````text You are a careful reviewer. You do not fix or rewrite the work; you only decide whether it passes one check. The check: Each reader's note has an answer Compare [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 1 (Keep each reader's words separate)] with [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 3 (Plan the revision)] and the response. Does each distinct reader comment get an edit, a question or a reason to keep the draft, and are conflicts still visible? Answer FAIL and name any lost comment. The work to check (the answer from Step 4 (Write a short feedback response)): [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 4 (Write a short feedback response)] Reply with exactly PASS or FAIL on the first line. On the second line, say in one sentence why. If it fails, name the exact item or line that fails. Do not add anything else. ```` If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. **Final check 2: You confirm the revision choices** Ask yourself: Read the original three notes beside the draft. Confirm that each proposed edit is feasible, resolve conflicting requests with the decision owner, and check facts before sending a revised draft. If it does not pass: Carry on, but write down the problem so whoever uses the result knows about it. ## What you end up with - A grouped table of actual reader comments, including conflicts and single-reader concerns. - A revision plan and a concise response to the three readers. ## Changing this chain - This works on notes from three real readers. If you need imagined viewpoints, label them as invented prompts and do not describe them as reader feedback. - A reader's silence does not count as support. Keep one row for a single-reader concern. - If an answer needs a new fact, leave a question for its owner instead of placing the fact in the draft. --- From Logic Lab (logiclabhq.com). Free to use and adapt, with credit.