Decompose and clarify

Use decomposition when:

• later steps depend on earlier choices;
• different stages need different evidence rules;
• you want a checkpoint for human review;
• a single response would mix brainstorming with commitments.

Example sequence for a meeting follow-up:

1. extract candidate decisions and open questions from notes only;
2. human confirms which items are real decisions;
3. draft messages only for confirmed items;
4. verify names, dates, and owners against the source.

If you skip stage 2, stage 3 may confidently assign work nobody accepted.

A clarification pattern tells the model to ask a bounded number of questions when critical inputs are missing. Critical usually means audience, deadline, authoritative facts, success criteria, or risk boundaries.

Write limits:

• ask at most five questions;
• prefer multiple-choice when possible;
• do not draft until answers arrive, unless a partial outline is explicitly allowed;
• never fill gaps with plausible fiction.

Without limits, clarification can become endless interviewing. Without the no-draft rule, the model may ask questions and still invent the missing pieces.

For reasoning tasks, ask for brief visible steps tied to provided information: “List the assumptions you are using from the brief, then the options, then the recommendation.” This is different from demanding theatrical chain-of-thought that invents facts to sound careful.

Useful intermediate artifacts include:

• assumption list;
• open questions;
• options with tradeoffs;
• checklist against criteria;
• draft marked with uncertainty tags.

Each artifact can be reviewed. Invisible reasoning cannot.

Decomposition is not bureaucracy for its own sake. Place checkpoints where mistakes are expensive: after extraction, before sending, before spending, before publishing citations, before changing account data. Skip checkpoints for low-stakes brainstorming.

Write who decides at each gate. The model can propose. A person confirms meaning, authority, and next action.

Goal:
Known inputs:
Unknowns that block quality:
Stages:
1) ...
2) human review of ...
3) ...
Rules:
- Use only known inputs as facts.
- At each stage, separate facts, inferences, and proposals.
- Stop for clarification if a blocking unknown remains.
- Do not advance to irreversible outputs without the review stage.

Adapt the stages to the domain. The pattern is the staged contract, not a universal five-step ritual.

• Fake decomposition: numbered paragraphs that still invent the plan.
• Over-decomposition: twenty micro-steps for a three-line rewrite.
• Clarification theater: questions that do not change the draft.
• Lost context: later stages ignore constraints established earlier—repeat standing rules each stage or keep one running brief.

Decomposition fails when every stage still demands a finished deliverable. Give early stages permission to be incomplete: lists, questions, and flagged uncertainties are success. Save polish for the final stage after humans confirm the facts. Write a stopping rule such as “do not draft external messages until owners and dates are confirmed.” That rule protects you from eloquence that outruns authority.