Summarise to a Decision, Not Just a Shorter Version
What it is
Summarising a document toward the decision you actually have to make — 'what should I do about this' — rather than asking for a generically shorter version.
Why it works
A neutral summary still leaves you to do the real work of judgement. Anchoring the summary to your decision forces ChatGPT to surface only what changes that decision, and to say what it implies.
When to use it
Reports, contracts, research papers, and long threads where you need to act, not just be informed. Best when you can name the decision up front.
When not to use it
When you genuinely need a faithful neutral abstract — for a literature review or a record — a decision frame would distort it.
Prompt
Summarise the document below for one purpose: I need to decide <decision>.
Give me: the 3-5 facts that bear on that decision, anything that argues against my current lean, and your recommended call with its main risk. Skip everything that doesn't move the decision.
<document>Example
Fed a 20-page vendor proposal with the decision 'renew or switch', ChatGPT returns four cost/lock-in facts, one hidden auto-renewal clause, and a switch recommendation with the migration risk named.
Advanced version
Ask for the summary at two altitudes — a one-line call for a busy stakeholder and a half-page rationale for the record — from the same read, so you can forward the right one to the right person.
Common mistakes
- Asking to 'summarise this' with no decision, and getting a shorter document you still have to interpret.
- Letting the model drop the counter-argument because it wasn't asked for.
- Trusting a decision summary of a document ChatGPT only partly ingested — confirm it saw the whole thing.