Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-14
Turn a regulatory change you've heard about into a one-page brief leadership can actually act on
Structures a regulatory change you describe into a concise internal brief covering what it means for your organization specifically and what needs to happen next, without asserting facts about the regulation you haven't verified.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Write a one-page internal brief on the regulatory change described below, for the audience named. Use only what I've told you about the change — do not add detail about the regulation itself that I haven't given you, since you have not verified the actual regulatory text. THE CHANGE (as I understand it — to be verified) I heard our state is introducing new pay transparency requirements for job postings starting sometime next year. SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION Mentioned in an industry newsletter; haven't seen the actual bill text. WHO THIS BRIEF IS FOR Head of HR and the executive team. WHY THIS MATTERS TO US SPECIFICALLY We post 15-20 job openings a month across 3 states and don't currently include salary ranges. BRIEF STRUCTURE Open with a two-sentence plain summary of the change as I described it, clearly labeled as unverified pending confirmation from the actual regulatory source or counsel. Then explain, based only on the organizational relevance I gave you, what this could mean for us specifically — not a general explanation of the regulatory area, but the concrete operational implication for our situation. List open questions that need to be answered before we can act — what exactly is required, by when, who's affected, what the compliance mechanism looks like — rather than guessing at answers to fill gaps in what I described. Propose a short list of immediate next steps that don't depend on those open questions being resolved yet (e.g., "confirm with counsel whether this applies to us," "identify who owns this internally") so the brief is useful even before the details are nailed down. WHAT NOT TO DO Do not state an effective date, penalty amount, specific compliance mechanism, or scope of who's covered unless I explicitly gave you that detail — these are exactly the facts that need verification, and stating them with confidence when they came from an unverified source compounds the risk of the information being wrong. Do not cite a specific statute number, agency name, or legal source unless I gave it to you. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. Summary (labeled unverified/pending confirmation). 2. Specific relevance to us. 3. Open questions needing verification. 4. Immediate next steps that don't require those answers first. 5. A closing line stating this brief is based on unverified information as described and must be confirmed against the actual regulatory source, and reviewed by a qualified compliance lawyer, before any compliance action, public statement, or resourcing decision is made based on it.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The realistic failure mode for this task isn't a badly structured brief, it's a model quietly upgrading an unverified rumor into a confidently stated fact — given a vague input like "I heard our state is introducing pay transparency requirements," a model asked to "write a brief" will often fill in a plausible effective date, scope, or penalty because briefs conventionally include those details and the model has seen many real regulatory briefs with them present, which here would mean inventing exactly the facts that haven't actually been confirmed and handing leadership something that looks authoritative but isn't. Explicitly restricting the model to what was described, and instructing it to list open questions rather than guess at their answers, is the direct countermeasure — it keeps the brief honest about the boundary between what's known and what needs verification, which is the entire point of a brief meant to prompt action rather than substitute for it. Requiring the organizational relevance section to stay concrete and specific (based only on the org_relevance input) rather than drifting into general commentary about the regulatory area keeps the brief useful to this specific audience instead of reading like a generic explainer they could have found in a newsletter themselves. Separating "open questions" from "immediate next steps that don't depend on those answers" solves a real organizational stall pattern where a brief that only lists unknowns produces no action because everyone is waiting for someone else to resolve the uncertainty first — giving concrete, unblocked next steps (confirm with counsel, assign an owner) means the brief drives movement even while the underlying facts are still being verified, which is exactly the state most regulatory-change briefs are written in.
What you get back
Summary (unverified, pending confirmation): We've heard from an industry newsletter that our state may introduce pay transparency requirements for job postings, though we haven't seen the actual bill text or an effective date. Relevance to us: we post 15-20 openings monthly across 3 states without salary ranges, so if this applies to us as described, it would require a real change to our hiring workflow. Open questions: exact effective date, which of our 3 states are covered, whether existing postings need updating or only new ones. Next steps: assign HR to confirm the bill's actual text and status this week; loop in outside counsel before making any posting changes. This brief is based on unverified information and must be confirmed against the actual regulatory source and reviewed by a qualified compliance lawyer before any action is taken.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-14
Changelog
- 2026-08-14 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
