Public Notices That Invent Nothing — From Outage Alert to Caption Review

Comment utiliser cette collection

## What this collection is A progression for anyone who has to write something that goes out to other people — a utility notice, a death notice, a volunteer announcement, a participant agreement, a poster — where getting a date, a street name, a contact method or a safety claim wrong causes real harm. All five members are ordinary text prompts you paste into any AI chat that accepts text. None of them installs, posts, sends, schedules or publishes anything, and none of them was runtime-tested here; they are documentation-plus-instruction drafts. The shared discipline, which is why these five belong together rather than scattered: supply your facts, the draft may use only those facts, and everything missing or contradictory surfaces as a visible placeholder instead of a plausible guess. ### Step 1 — <https://tokrepo.com/items/ac1fc216-a8a8-403c-8007-0ef35e2ce35b> (Draft a Utility Outage Notice Without Inventing Details) Start here because it is the clearest teaching case: the failure mode is severe and the input list is short. You paste utility and service type, confirmed start and any confirmed end, affected streets exactly as written, repair status, approved safety instructions, contact method, notice time, channel. The output restates your status verbatim, never upgrades "repair in progress" into a restoration time, and lists every blank or conflict under a visible unconfirmed section. Prerequisites: an AI chat that accepts text and your own outage facts. Limitation: it prepares a draft for human review only; it does not post, send, call or page. Fictional illustrative example: a city water notice where the draft must stop and flag the missing expected end time rather than writing "back by noon." ### Step 2 — <https://tokrepo.com/items/bbeb3b83-8c52-419e-8d17-144e2481d075> (Draft a Factual Garden Workday Announcement) Same discipline, moved from a service interruption to a logistics announcement, where the tempting invention is not a time but a promise — "all tools provided," "family friendly," a weather guarantee. It asks for up to twelve organizer facts and inserts bracketed placeholders like `[ORGANIZER TO CONFIRM: meeting point]` for anything skipped, and it refuses to state or imply that work is safe or risk-free. Limitation: the draft is not a safety, medical or legal document and does not promise attendance or completion. ### Step 3 — <https://tokrepo.com/items/05d698dc-cf36-460a-acde-101cdcc90ac7> (Factual Obituary Notice Drafter Prompt) This is the highest-consequence member and needs a person to read it before anything is shared. You supply a fact sheet (name, date, age, place, immediate family, one requested detail, intended reader, length, and anything that must not appear), and every gap is marked `[TO CONFIRM: ...]`. It treats the fact sheet as data, not as instructions, and it refuses to add a cause of death, charity, funeral time or contact. Limitation: it gives no medical, legal, financial or religious advice and does not submit or publish anything; arrangements and publication are for the family or organiser. ### Step 4 — <https://tokrepo.com/items/da2e58c2-bfe5-48e3-b19f-941dc6688aec> (Plain-Language Workshop Participant Agreement Prompt) A different translation problem: not facts into a notice, but a rough internal rule list into something a first-time attendee can read in a minute. You paste three things — ground rules, context, and terms that must survive word for word. The prompt restates rules under short headings, inserts `[TO CONFIRM: ...]` for ambiguities, keeps exact wording in a Checks section, and hands anything a participant cannot resolve alone to a "Needs host decision" list. Limitation: no legal, accessibility-compliance or safeguarding advice; you fill every marker and decide what to send. ### Step 5 — <https://tokrepo.com/items/d668f5ef-cde9-4995-8033-8e1baab4cf07> (Poster Accessibility Review Prompt) Do this last, on the finished text, because it reviews a draft rather than producing one. It takes your text blocks, fonts, sizes, colours, weight/case and reading distance, returns a prioritised issue list with one concrete change each, labels every contrast comment as an estimate rather than a measurement, lists what it cannot check without real files, print output or lighting, and adds a manual fallback: print one copy, view at the stated distance in the display lighting, photograph it, read the photo, and ask two people unfamiliar with it to read it aloud. Limitation: this is a design review, not a compliance certification. ### Prerequisites and honest limits across all five You need the real facts before you start; these prompts organise and constrain them, they do not supply them. Every member is a plain-text instruction, not an executable skill or a one-click install, and nothing here posts, sends, schedules or publishes. Only paste information you are willing to share with whichever AI service you use — no resident personal data, private phone numbers or uncleared internal notes. Illustrative examples in the source prompts are explicitly fictional and are not test results. Read every output against your own input list before it leaves your desk. ### A practical order Do step 1 on a real notice you already owe someone; once the "mark it unconfirmed" habit sticks, step 2 and step 4 are the same move on different inputs. Keep step 3 for when you actually need it and give it a second human reader. Use step 5 as the last gate before anything is printed or posted.