For a workshop organizer, “research the venue” leaves too much open. A useful question is whether the venue's published access information answers what attendees need to know for a particular event.
Set the decision and source boundaries
Open Deep research from ChatGPT's tools menu, or type /Deepresearch. Usage and availability depend on your account; inspect the displayed usage counter rather than relying on a universal monthly allowance.
This prompt uses an illustrative event, not a venue investigation already performed:
Research the published accessibility information for [VENUE NAME]
at [OFFICIAL WEBSITE] for our workshop on [DATE].
Answer these questions:
- Which entrance does the venue identify for step-free access?
- What does it publish about accessible toilets and lifts?
- Does it describe a hearing loop or another listening system?
- Who should an attendee contact for an access question?
Prioritize the venue's official access and visitor pages. Use other
sources only to identify a question or discrepancy, clearly labeled.
Exclude old event listings as evidence of current arrangements.
For each answer, include a source link, supporting passage, any
published update date, and what remains unconfirmed. Do not infer
an accessible route from a photograph or a generic venue description.
Before researching, propose the plan. Deliver a short organizer
brief and a list of questions we must confirm directly with the venue.
In Sites > Manage sites, you can restrict research to specified domains or prioritize them while allowing a broader search. Choose restriction if the task is specifically to document what the venue itself publishes. Choose prioritization if you also need to discover conflicting visitor reports. These controls change the permitted source scope. Research sources and plan controls
Correct the plan while the work is still bounded
Read the proposed plan for scope drift. A plan that adds nearby restaurants and tourist attractions does not help answer the access questions above. Ask it to remove those sections and spend the research effort on the intended entrance, facilities, and contact information.
If the plan treats a two-year-old event page as current evidence, ask for the venue's maintained access page and a visible distinction between dates. You can steer the research while it runs.
Audit the claims that attendees will act on
Suppose a fictional report says “The north entrance has step-free access,” but the linked source says “Step-free entry is available through the east entrance.” Correct the report and inspect nearby route statements for the same mistake. The citation's existence does not resolve the disagreement.
Use a short review table in your own notes:
| Claim in the report | What to verify in its source |
|---|---|
| Named accessible entrance | The same entrance and any opening restrictions |
| Lift availability | The floors served and any current service notice |
| Listening support | Which system, where it operates, and how to request it |
OpenAI provides report downloads including Word, PDF, and Markdown. Export after correcting the consequential claims. For one isolated current fact, ChatGPT Search may be enough. For this broader brief, keep the checked source links and send the unresolved questions to the venue before issuing attendee instructions.