Follow your assignment's rules on AI assistance and case-material access. This approach concerns analyzing a supplied decision case; a client success story or portfolio case study needs a different structure.
State the decision before asking for a summary
This original fictional practice case concerns a workshop organizer choosing a delivery plan for 48 confirmed attendees. The case supplies these facts:
| Option | Supplied capacity and staffing | Consequence under the stated facts |
|---|---|---|
| A: one session | 40 seats; one facilitator | Eight confirmed attendees lack seats |
| B: two sessions | 24 seats each; two facilitator slots | All 48 fit, if both facilitator slots are available |
The organizer has one confirmed facilitator slot. A second is requested but not confirmed. No budget, waitlist policy or permission to exclude confirmed attendees is supplied.
“Choose B because everyone fits” skips its staffing condition. “Choose A because it is simpler” skips the eight people without seats. The immediate decision may be conditional: seek confirmation of the second slot by the planning deadline, with an explicit unresolved fallback if it is unavailable.
Harvard Business School's case-method explanation, checked October 24, 2026, emphasizes reasoning about a decision with incomplete information and discussing alternatives. The fictional workshop is independent teaching material, not an HBS case or answer key.
Write a recommendation with its controlling condition
An authored draft argument is: “I favor two sessions because it is the only supplied option that seats all 48 confirmed attendees. That recommendation depends on confirming a second facilitator slot. I would ask for that decision before finalizing the schedule. The supplied case does not establish an acceptable fallback if the slot is unavailable.”
The arithmetic is 40 versus 48 for A, and 2 × 24 = 48 for B. It says nothing about learning quality, cost or attendee preferences. Adding a claim that two sessions improve satisfaction would require evidence absent from the case.
Ask the model for the strongest objection. Here, it is that capacity alone does not make B feasible. Address that objection by retaining the staffing condition; do not erase it to produce a decisive-sounding final paragraph.
Copy a case-analysis prompt
Help critique my analysis of a teaching case.
Assignment question and allowed assistance: [PASTE]
Case decision-maker, decision date and deadline: [ENTER]
Permitted case facts and exhibit references: [PASTE]
Available options and supplied constraints: [PASTE]
My initial recommendation and reasons: [PASTE]
Identify the decision and compare options using explicit criteria.
Separate facts, my inferences and missing information. Attach each
major argument to a case reference. Check calculations from the data.
Give the strongest counterargument to my recommendation and the fact
that would change my mind. Do not invent costs, motives, outcomes,
extra options or facts learned after the decision date. Ask questions
where the case is silent. Return a critique I can use to revise my own
reasoning, not a claim that the case has one certified correct answer.
OpenAI's prompting documentation supports including context and specifying the requested critique. Keep your argument visible so the model can challenge it rather than supply a position you have never examined.
Bring the unresolved choice to discussion
Revise your recommendation in your own words. Carry the strongest objection and the evidence that would change your position into the class discussion. Afterward, record why your judgment changed or remained the same.
If you instead need to document work already completed, use the client-project case-study template. For a decision case, finish with what you would do under the information available at that point and the condition your recommendation depends on.