Stakeholder Interest Map from Meeting Notes

Start here

Copy the complete original prompt text (published with its full Chinese translation) into any ordinary AI chat that accepts pasted text. No terminal, account setup or API is required.

What to paste before the prompt:

• Meeting name, date, and your role (if known) — fill the {{...}} slot.
• The raw notes, transcript excerpt, chat log or email thread.
• Optionally, the upcoming decision or question you care about.

Check the output before you rely on it: every name in the table must appear by name in your notes; each quoted phrase must be short and exact; the map must not claim agreement, decisions or a majority unless your notes state it. If the notes name nobody, the correct output is to say so and stop.

What this prompt does

It reads only the text you paste and builds a stakeholder-interest map: a table of each named person, team, role or organization, with their stated position, the basis given, any unresolved question, and an evidence-strength label (explicit, implied, unclear). Below the table it adds shared ground, live disagreements, unattributed or floating issues, and a list of things you still need to confirm with real people before relying on the map.

It is a preparation aid for your own review, not a record of what was decided.

Prerequisites and permissions

• A general AI chat that accepts pasted text. Nothing else is needed.
• You must have the right to paste those notes into that tool. Meeting notes and chat logs often contain names, commercial plans or personal remarks; redact anything you are not allowed to share.
• The prompt cannot browse, message anyone, schedule meetings or update any system; it only reads what you paste.

Limitations

• Quality depends entirely on your notes. Garbled or partial quotes are marked [partial quote] and left incomplete.
• Contradictory notes about the same party are shown side by side, marked conflicting notes.
• An implied or unclear label means the model is inferring; treat it as a prompt to verify, not a fact.
• reason not stated and no explicit open question in these notes are required placeholders instead of guessing.
• It gives no legal, HR, medical or financial advice, and it is not a final record of commitments.

FAQ

Can I use it with a rough transcript full of filler words? Yes, as long as names are intact. Expect many reason not stated entries, since the checklist requires those placeholders instead of guessing.

It invented a person who was only mentioned in passing — what now? Reject that row and edit the notes to remove or flag ambiguous names. The prompt's own check says every party must appear by name in your notes.

Verification note

Source reviewed; runtime not tested. The supplied evidence includes no executed run, so behaviour across specific chat products is not claimed. The worked example in the original prompt is labelled fictional and is an output-shape illustration, not a test result.

Source

Original TokRepo prompt, CC BY 4.0. Reference context: ChatGPT release notes (reviewed 2026-10-04). Thanks to the contributors of that reference material; external material keeps its own rights.

Complete reusable prompt

You help me turn supplied meeting notes into a stakeholder-interest map. Work only from the text I provide. Do not invent positions, alliances, priorities, decisions, or quotes.

Input I will paste

• Meeting name, date, and my role (if known)
• The raw notes, transcript excerpt, chat log, or email thread
• Optional: upcoming decision or question I care about

Task

1. Read my notes fully before writing anything.
2. Identify every named person, team, role, or organization that appears. Do not add parties who are not named.
3. For each party, extract:
   • Stated position: Their view or preference as expressed in the notes. Quote a short phrase (max 15 words) from the notes and label it as a quote.
   • Basis or reason: Why they hold that view, if stated. If not stated, write reason not stated.
   • Unresolved question: Any open question, objection, condition, or missing information connected to that party. If none appears, write no explicit open question in these notes.
   • Evidence strength: explicit if the notes directly state it, implied if it can only be inferred, unclear if ambiguous.
4. After the table, add:
   • Shared ground: points where two or more parties appear aligned, with the supporting quote or line.
   • Live disagreements: points where positions conflict, showing both sides.
   • Unattributed or floating issues: concerns in the notes not tied to a named party.
   • My action list: what I still need to confirm with real people before relying on this map.

Output format

Markdown with:

• A one-paragraph Scope note stating which source text you used and its apparent completeness.
• A table with columns: Party | Stated position (quoted if possible) | Basis | Unresolved question | Evidence strength.
• The four sections above under clear headings.
• A final Boundaries line: "This map reflects only the supplied notes. It is not a record of decisions, commitments, or consensus."

Uncertainty and missing data

• If the notes do not name any parties, say so and stop.
• If a quote is partial or garbled, mark it [partial quote] and do not complete it.
• If two notes contradict each other about the same party, show both and mark conflicting notes.
• If I provide an upcoming decision, flag which parties' unresolved questions matter most for it, using only the notes.

Checks before you finalize

• Every party in the table appears by name in my notes.
• Every quoted phrase is copied exactly and short.
• No claim of agreement, decision, or majority unless the notes state it.
• reason not stated and no explicit open question in these notes used where appropriate instead of guessing.
• The action list contains only verification steps, not actions you performed.

Boundaries

• Do not browse, message anyone, schedule meetings, or update any system.
• Do not give legal, HR, medical, or financial advice.
• Do not treat this map as a final record; it is a preparation aid for my review.

Worked example

Fictional input:

Meeting: Q3 launch sync, 12 May
Ana (Marketing): wants the launch pushed to June because the campaign assets are not ready.
Ben (Sales): needs it in May to hit the quarter, says pipeline depends on it.
Priya (Support): asks whether training will happen before either date; no answer given.

Illustrative output shape:

Checks for this example would pass if all three names come from the notes, each quote is short and exact, no consensus is claimed, and the action list contains only follow-up questions. Fail if the output invents a fourth party, upgrades Priya's question into a position, or states that a June launch was agreed.

Input now

Meeting name, date, role: {{...}} Upcoming decision or question I care about (optional): {{...}} Notes: {{paste here}}

References and reuse

• ChatGPT release notes · Reviewed 2026-10-04

Original TokRepo prompt · CC BY 4.0. Reference documents retain their own rights.