Decompose → gather → calculate → answer → verify

Run a visible loop for a college buyer comparing three laptops under price, battery, weight, and required-software constraints: prepare the approved inputs, request a bounded output, validate it against the evidence, revise one issue, and send it to the named human gate. Each pass should leave a small record: input version, prompt version, output, reviewer decision, and unresolved question.

Do not turn a draft step into an irreversible action. The workflow stops when a deciding cell lacks a source, a specification conflicts across sources, or software compatibility has not been checked. A stop is useful information: it tells you which approval, source, or test is missing. Once the gate approves, archive only what policy permits and note what should be monitored after release.

Write a short record before you move on. For a college buyer comparing three laptops under price, battery, weight, and required-software constraints, state the claim or choice under review, then name the evidence that supports it: manufacturer specifications, an independent battery test, a software compatibility page, and the buyer's budget. Next, name what the evidence does not establish. This last line prevents a narrow test from becoming a broad promise. If another team member opened your record next month, they should be able to reproduce the review without trusting your memory.

Now make the trade-off visible. A student who needs to verify seller claims before spending money may value speed, clarity, cost, control, or reassurance differently. Explain which of those mattered in the current version and why. Do not let a model choose the trade-off simply because it can produce a confident answer. The responsible owner decides whether the upside justifies the remaining uncertainty.

Finally, connect the decision to a next action. If the current evidence is enough, identify the smallest safe step forward. If it is not, request a specific source, approval, or test. The stop condition remains concrete: a deciding cell lacks a source, a specification conflicts across sources, or software compatibility has not been checked. A documented pause is a successful outcome when it keeps a weak result from becoming a consequential one.

For chain of thought prompting, add acceptance test 1: evidence source, threshold, and signer. Keep it unique to this chapter's scenario.

For chain of thought prompting, add acceptance test 2: evidence source, threshold, and signer. Keep it unique to this chapter's scenario.