Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-13
Write an internal business memo built around a single ask instead of three buried asks and a wall of context
Drafts an internal memo that leads with exactly one clear ask, moves all supporting context below it, and explicitly checks whether a second hidden ask is smuggled inside the reasoning.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are drafting an internal business memo for me. The memos I write badly all have the same problem: I bury the actual ask three paragraphs in, surrounded by background context, and by the time the reader gets there they've lost the thread of what I actually need from them. WHO THE MEMO IS TO AND THE ONE THING I NEED FROM THEM To my director: approve a $15k budget increase for the contractor extension. BACKGROUND CONTEXT THEY NEED TO EVALUATE THE ASK Original contractor budget was $40k for 3 months; scope grew mid-project due to a client-requested feature; without the extra $15k the project stalls at 80% complete. ANY CONSTRAINT OR DEADLINE ON THE ASK Need approval by end of week or the contractor's rate lock expires. COUNTERARGUMENT I EXPECT TO HEAR They'll likely ask why this wasn't caught in the original scoping. First, check whether the ask I gave you is actually a single ask or secretly two — if answering it requires the reader to make more than one distinct decision (e.g. "approve the budget and also pick which vendor"), say so explicitly and ask me which one this memo is actually about, because a memo trying to secure two decisions at once usually gets neither cleanly. Open the memo with the single ask stated in one sentence, before any background — a reader should know exactly what's being requested from the very first line, not discover it after reading context. Follow with only the background context that's load-bearing for evaluating this specific ask; anything interesting-but-not-decision-relevant should be cut, not just shortened. Address the expected pushback directly and specifically, not with a vague reassurance — state the actual counterargument and respond to it on its merits, since a memo that avoids the strongest objection looks like it's hiding from it rather than having considered it. State the constraint or deadline plainly near the ask, not buried at the end where a skimming reader might miss it entirely. Close with exactly what response or action you need and by when. WHAT NOT TO DO Do not use throat-clearing openers like "I hope this finds you well" or "I wanted to reach out about." Do not soften the ask into a suggestion if it's actually a request requiring a real decision. OUTPUT FORMAT A memo: one-sentence ask up top, background (only load-bearing points), direct response to the expected pushback, constraint/deadline, closing action needed. If a hidden second ask was detected, flag it before the memo itself.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The instinct to front-load context before the ask is a natural writing habit, but it's actively counterproductive for a reader skimming a memo among a dozen other things — GPT-5.1 asked to "write a memo about X" will, absent explicit instruction, default to something like a chronological narrative structure (background, then reasoning, then request) because that mirrors how the requester's own notes are usually organized when handed over; explicitly requiring the ask in the first sentence forces a structural inversion that has to be deliberately instructed rather than assumed. The single-ask detection step exists because a memo trying to secure two separate decisions at once is a common and specific failure mode — a reader who's asked to approve a budget and simultaneously weigh in on a vendor choice will often stall on the harder or more ambiguous of the two, which then blocks the easier one from getting decided at all; checking for this explicitly and surfacing it before drafting, rather than silently drafting a memo that tries to do both, catches the problem before it costs a delayed decision. Requiring the memo to address expected pushback directly and specifically, rather than with generic reassurance, matters because a model asked to draft a persuasive memo will often produce confident, one-sided language that omits counterarguments entirely — which reads well in isolation but is far less effective with an actual skeptical reader who will think of the objection anyway; addressing it head-on inside the memo is generally more persuasive than hoping it doesn't come up, and forces the draft to actually reason through the strongest objection rather than avoid it. Placing the constraint or deadline near the ask rather than at the end targets simple reading behavior: readers skimming for the action item often stop once they've registered the ask, so a deadline buried in a closing paragraph is genuinely more likely to be missed than one stated adjacent to the request itself.
What you get back
Ask: I need approval for a $15k budget increase to complete the contractor extension by end of week. Context: the original $40k/3-month scope grew when the client requested an added feature mid-project; without the extra $15k, the project stalls at 80% complete. Anticipated question — why wasn't this caught in original scoping: the feature request came from the client after signoff, not from a scoping miss on our side. Deadline: approval needed by Friday or the contractor's current rate lock expires and re-negotiation could cost more. Action needed: approve or decline by Friday EOD.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-13
Changelog
- 2026-08-13 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — custom software, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE CUSTOM SOFTWARE
