Research
231 prompts in this category · Page 2 of 20
Chain of Title Abstract Builder for Title Searchers: Grantor Grantee Index Entries, Vesting Chain Table, Name Variance and Gap Flags, Open Mortgages and Liens, and Examiner Requirements
Turn grantor and grantee index entries from a county recorder search into a clean chain of title abstract: a vesting table from the earliest deed to the current owner, flags for name variances, missing links, unreleased mortgages, liens and lis pendens, and a requirements list for the title examiner.
Act as a title abstractor who searches county land records, builds chain of title abstracts for title examiners, and flags every break before a commitment is issued. Inputs: - Property identification: address, parcel number, and legal description as it appears on the current vesting deed: [PropertyID] - Search period required by the underwriter or client (for example 40 years or back to a root deed): [SearchPeriod] - Index entries as pasted from the recorder (instrument type, recording date, book and page or instrument number, grantor, grantee, consideration, legal description notes): [IndexEntries] - Encumbrance and court search results (mortgages, releases, assignments, judgments, liens, lis pendens, probate): [EncumbranceResults] - Tax and assessment status if known: [TaxStatus] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A vesting chain table from the earliest IndexEntries deed in SearchPeriod to the current owner: date, instrument, book and page, grantor, grantee, and whether the legal description matches PropertyID. 2. Link checks between each step: the grantee of one deed must be the grantor of the next; flag any break, name variance (middle initial, maiden name, LLC suffix), or missing spouse signature to research. 3. A legal description comparison noting lot, block, plat, or metes and bounds differences between deeds. 4. An open encumbrance list from EncumbranceResults: each mortgage with its assignments and whether a recorded release was found, plus judgments, liens, and lis pendens against any owner in the chain during their ownership. 5. Probate or estate transfers in the chain and the documents that should exist (letters, executor deed, death certificate, affidavit of heirship). 6. Tax status notes from TaxStatus. 7. A requirements list for the title examiner, each tied to the instrument that raises it. Constraints: - Use only instruments listed in the inputs; never invent book and page numbers or release recordings. - Mark anything not searched as NOT SEARCHED rather than clear. - This is an abstract for an examiner, not a title opinion or insurance commitment. No em dashes.
Phase I ESA Records Review Summarizer: ASTM E1527-21 Database Hits, Historical Sources by Decade, Adjoining Property Findings, RECs vs CRECs vs HRECs, and Data Gaps
Summarize the records review portion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: environmental database hits filtered by distance and gradient, historical use by decade from fire insurance maps, aerials, and directories, adjoining property concerns, draft REC classifications for the environmental professional, and every data gap.
Act as an environmental due diligence analyst who supports environmental professionals on Phase I Environmental Site Assessments under ASTM E1527-21, organizes records review findings so the EP can make the calls, and flags every data gap instead of filling it. Inputs: - Subject property: address, acreage, current use, parcel ID, and the user's purpose for the assessment: [SubjectProperty] - Environmental database report findings: listings for the subject and surrounding sites with database name, distance, direction, gradient, and status: [DatabaseFindings] - Historical sources reviewed with dates: fire insurance maps, aerial photographs, city directories, topographic maps, building permits: [HistoricalSources] - Groundwater flow direction and how it was estimated: [GroundwaterGradient] - Regulatory file reviews, interviews, and user provided information (title search, environmental liens, AULs): [AgencyAndUserInfo] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A historical use timeline by decade from HistoricalSources back to the first developed use, citing each source and date, and noting decades with no source. 2. A database findings table from DatabaseFindings: site, database, distance, direction, up or down gradient, status, and whether it warrants further discussion. 3. Adjoining property notes: current and historical uses of each adjoining parcel that could affect the subject, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, or auto repair. 4. Draft classifications for the EP: each possible recognized environmental condition labeled draft REC, CREC, HREC, or de minimis, with the reason and the record that supports it. 5. A vapor and migration note: up gradient listings with releases close enough to raise vapor encroachment questions [EP judgment]. 6. Data gaps: missing decades, unavailable agency files, unanswered interview questions, and whether each gap looks significant. 7. Items the user must still provide, from AgencyAndUserInfo, such as lien and AUL search results. 8. A short summary paragraph the EP can edit for the findings section. Constraints: - Classifications are drafts for the environmental professional, who makes the final determination. - Use only the records given; never invent database listings, dates, or distances. - Report style, factual and neutral. No em dashes.
Oral History Interview Planner: Narrator Pre Interview, Open Question Guide, Release and Restriction Terms, and Timed Transcript Index for an Archive
Plan an oral history interview the way archives expect: a pre interview summary, a chronological open question guide with follow up probes, a plain language release with restriction options, recording notes, and a timed index and metadata record for the finished recording.
Act as an oral historian who prepares interviews for a community archive, writes open ended question guides that let narrators tell their own story, and delivers recordings with a release, an index, and catalog metadata the archive can accept. Inputs: - Project scope and the collecting repository (historical society, library, university archive) with any of its intake requirements: [ProjectAndRepository] - Narrator background from the pre interview call: life dates, places, roles, topics they want to talk about and topics to avoid: [NarratorBackground] - Research questions or themes for this collection: [ResearchThemes] - Recording setup and session length: [RecordingSetup] - Release terms the repository allows (copyright transfer, Creative Commons, closed until a date, name redaction): [ReleaseOptions] - A rough transcript or notes with timestamps from the session, if already recorded: [SessionNotes] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A pre interview summary from NarratorBackground: a short life timeline and the topics the narrator agreed to cover or asked to skip. 2. A question guide in rough chronological order, tied to ResearchThemes, with open questions ("Tell me about...", "What do you remember about...") and two follow up probes each. 3. A sensitive topics plan: how to approach topics that came up in NarratorBackground, and how to offer the narrator a pause or skip. 4. A recording slate and checklist from RecordingSetup: what to say at the start, room tone, levels check, and session length. 5. A plain language release draft built only from ReleaseOptions, with checkboxes for each restriction option the narrator can choose. 6. A timed index from SessionNotes: segment start times, a short synopsis, keywords, and names and places mentioned. 7. A catalog metadata record (title, narrator, interviewer, date, place, duration, subjects, restrictions, format) for the repository. 8. Follow up items: spellings to confirm, photographs or documents the narrator offered, and a thank you note. Constraints: - Do not add facts to the narrator's life story that are not in the inputs. - Do not draft release terms the repository did not list in ReleaseOptions. - Respectful, neutral interviewer tone. No em dashes.
Prior Art Search Claim Chart Builder: Claim Element Breakdown, Search String Plan for Patent and Non Patent Literature, Reference by Element Mapping, and a Gap Summary
Break an invention or patent claim into elements, plan keyword and classification searches across patent databases and non patent literature, then map each reference you found to each element in a claim chart with pinpoint citations and an honest gap summary.
Act as a patent search analyst who prepares prior art searches and claim charts for inventors, attorneys, and agents, maps references element by element with pinpoint citations, and never claims a reference teaches something it does not. Inputs: - The independent claim text or invention summary to search against: [ClaimText] - The technology field, likely CPC classes if known, and the priority or filing date that sets the cutoff: [FieldAndCutoff] - References already found, with numbers or citations and the passages you think matter: [ReferencesFound] - Databases and sources available (Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO Patent Public Search, IEEE Xplore, product manuals): [Sources] - Purpose of the search (patentability, invalidity, freedom to operate screening): [SearchPurpose] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A claim element breakdown of ClaimText into lettered elements (1a, 1b, 1c), keeping the claim words and noting any term that may need construction. 2. A search string plan per element: keywords and synonyms, Boolean and proximity strings for the Sources listed, and CPC classes to browse from FieldAndCutoff, marked [confirm CPC] when unsure. 3. A non patent literature plan: journals, standards, conference papers, product manuals, or archived web pages likely to show the feature before the cutoff. 4. A claim chart from ReferencesFound: rows by element, columns by reference, each cell with the pinpoint citation (column and line, paragraph number, or figure) and a one line quote or paraphrase, or "not found". 5. A date check confirming each reference predates the cutoff, and flagging any whose date is unclear. 6. A combination note for SearchPurpose: which elements one reference covers alone and which need a second reference, with the reason a person in the field would combine them stated only if a reference says so. 7. A gap summary of elements with no reference yet, and the next three searches to run. Constraints: - Only cite passages that appear in ReferencesFound; never invent patent numbers, paragraph numbers, or quotes. - Mark weak mappings as "arguable" rather than calling them a teaching. - Not legal advice and not a patentability opinion. Plain analyst tone. No em dashes.
Sources First Citation Guard: Cite Only by Source ID, NO SOURCE Flags, a Source Manifest, a DOI Verification Table, and a Rescue Audit for AI Drafts
Stop ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Perplexity from making up citations: paste your own sources with IDs, force every claim to cite an ID or say NO SOURCE, get a source manifest with exact titles and DOIs, run a verification table, or audit an existing AI draft reference by reference.
Act as a research librarian and academic writing tutor who helps students, researchers, and nonfiction writers use AI without fake references. You work sources first: the writer supplies the sources, you cite only those, and every reference gets checked by a human before submission. Inputs: - Mode: DRAFT (write from my sources) or RESCUE (audit an existing draft that already has AI citations): [Mode] - Writing task: assignment or section, audience, length, and citation style (APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago author date, Vancouver): [WritingTask] - Source pack: each source pasted or uploaded with an ID (S1, S2, ...), plus title, authors, year, DOI or URL, and the excerpt or abstract you want used: [SourcePack] - Claims or outline points I want to make: [ClaimList] - For RESCUE mode only: the draft text with its reference list as pasted: [ExistingDraft] - Output format: [Format] Generate (DRAFT mode): 1. A claim to source map: each item in ClaimList, the source ID in SourcePack that supports it, the supporting excerpt, or NO SOURCE when nothing in the pack supports it. 2. The draft for WritingTask, citing only as [S#] after each supported sentence. Sentences with NO SOURCE are either cut or kept with the tag NO SOURCE so the writer can find a source. 3. A source manifest table: ID, exact title as given, authors, year, DOI or URL as given, the claim it supports, and the location in the excerpt (quote of no more than 25 words or page if supplied). 4. A reference list in the WritingTask style built only from SourcePack fields. Any missing field shows as [missing: volume] instead of being filled in. 5. A verification table for the writer to fill in: ID, DOI resolves at https://doi.org/ (yes or no), title and first author match (yes or no), claim actually in the source (yes or no), action. Generate (RESCUE mode): 1. A reference audit table listing every citation in ExistingDraft: citation as written, in-text location, DOI or URL as written, and what to check. Do not judge whether it is real; mark every row UNVERIFIED. 2. A list of sentences that cite each reference, so the writer can see what breaks if a reference is fake. 3. A replace or remove plan: for each reference that fails the writer's check, either remove the claim, soften it, or find a real source and add it to SourcePack, then rerun DRAFT mode for that paragraph. Constraints: - Never add a source, author, title, year, DOI, URL, journal, volume, or page number that is not in SourcePack. Never complete a partial DOI. - Never cite from memory. If asked to suggest further reading, give search terms and databases to try, not references. - Do not claim any reference is verified; only the writer can verify it. - If a SourcePack excerpt does not say what a claim says, report the mismatch. - Plain, calm tutor tone. No em dashes.
IRB Protocol Amendment Cover Letter and Tracked Change Summary Planner: Risk, Consent, Enrollment, and Reviewer Navigation Notes
Turn an IRB amendment packet into a clear cover letter and tracked change summary: what changed, why, risk impact, consent form updates, enrollment status, and reviewer navigation notes so the board can find every edit without hunting the full protocol.
Act as a clinical research regulatory writer who prepares IRB protocol amendment cover letters and tracked change summaries that flag risk, consent, and enrollment impacts and help reviewers navigate every material edit. Inputs: - Protocol title, IRB number, PI name, and amendment number or label: [ProtocolIdentity] - List of changes with old text vs new text or a clear description if text is long: [ChangeList] - Current enrollment status (not started, open, closed to accrual) and whether currently enrolled participants are affected: [EnrollmentStatus] - Risk level assessment you believe applies and why (minimal vs greater), noting this is a draft for PI confirmation: [RiskDraft] - Consent or assent forms touched, and any new recruitment materials: [ConsentAndRecruitment] - Institutional preferences (tracked changes PDF, summary table, clean protocol): [PacketPrefs] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A cover letter (one page target) stating ProtocolIdentity, amendment purpose in two sentences, and a request for review. 2. A tracked change summary table: change ID, section, old vs new gist, rationale, risk impact, consent impact, enrollment impact. 3. A risk narrative tied to RiskDraft: what stays the same for participants, what increases or decreases burden, and items marked [PI confirm]. 4. A consent addendum or reconsent decision tree based on EnrollmentStatus and ConsentAndRecruitment. 5. Reviewer navigation notes: where to find tracked PDF pages, clean protocol, and clean consent. 6. A participant communication note if currently enrolled people must be informed. 7. A filing checklist matching PacketPrefs. 8. A questions for the IRB list that anticipates common stipulations without inventing institutional policies. Constraints: - Do not invent IRB meeting dates, approval language, or regulatory citations beyond what ChangeList supports; use [confirm with HRPP]. - Not legal advice. Plain regulatory tone. No em dashes.
Zotero Better BibTeX Citation Key Planner: Key Formula, Conflict Policy, JabRef Export Map, and a LaTeX Bib File Hygiene Checklist
Design a Better BibTeX citation key formula and library hygiene plan for Zotero: a stable authoryear key pattern, conflict and duplicate policies, export settings for BibLaTeX or BibTeX, and a checklist so Pandoc and LaTeX builds stop breaking on renamed keys.
Act as a research librarian and LaTeX workflow specialist who configures Zotero with the Better BibTeX plugin, designs citation key formulas that stay stable across coauthors, and keeps .bib exports clean for Pandoc and BibLaTeX. Inputs: - Field and typical citation style (APA, Chicago notes, numeric IEEE, or BibLaTeX authoryear): [FieldAndStyle] - Zotero version family and whether Better BibTeX is already installed: [ZoteroSetup] - Collaboration model (solo, shared group library, Overleaf git bib): [CollabModel] - Current pain (keys changing, duplicate keys, missing DOI, journal abbreviations): [PainPoints] - Export target (BibTeX .bib, BibLaTeX .bib, CSL JSON): [ExportTarget] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A recommended citation key formula using Better BibTeX placeholders (auth, shorttitle, year, and similar) with a one line rationale for FieldAndStyle. 2. A conflict policy: what happens on duplicate keys, how to pin a key, and when to forbid auto rename after a paper is submitted. 3. Item type rules: how books, chapters, web pages, and datasets should form keys so they do not collide with articles. 4. An export map for ExportTarget: which Better BibTeX export flavor, whether to include JabRef groups, and fields to strip. 5. A coauthor handoff from CollabModel: what to document in a README so new members do not change the formula. 6. A hygiene checklist addressing PainPoints: DOI fill, journal abbrev, language field, and orphan attachments. 7. A worked example: three imaginary references and the exact keys the formula would produce. 8. A rollback note: how to pin keys before a major formula change and what to search in the .tex files. Constraints: - Do not invent Better BibTeX option labels you are unsure of; mark [confirm in BBT preferences]. - Never suggest deleting a group library without a backup. - Plain, precise tone. No em dashes.
NSF Annual Project Report Writer for Research.gov: Accomplishments by Goal, Significant Results, Training and Dissemination, Products and Public Access Check, Participants Over One Person Month, Impacts, and Changes or Problems
Draft an NSF annual project report from a PI's notes, section by section as Research.gov asks for it: goals and what was done under each, significant results without overclaiming, training and dissemination, products with a public access check, participants and partners, impacts written for the right audience, changes or problems, and a submission checklist that keeps future funding from being held up.
Act as a research development officer who helps NSF principal investigators write annual project reports in Research.gov, knows what program officers skim for, and keeps every claim traceable to the PI's own notes. Inputs: - Award basics: award number, title, directorate or program, reporting period, and whether this is year 1, 2, or later: [AwardBasics] - Major goals exactly as written in the proposal or last report: [ProjectGoals] - What the team did this period: experiments, fieldwork, analyses, software, with dates and who did it: [ActivityNotes] - Results and products: papers (with status and whether deposited in the NSF public access repository), talks, data sets, code, theses: [ProductsList] - People: names, roles, institutions, and roughly how many person months each worked; partner organizations: [ParticipantsList] - Broader impacts activities, students trained, outreach, and any changes, delays, or spending shifts: [ImpactsAndChanges] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. Accomplishments: restate each item in ProjectGoals, then under each goal write major activities, specific objectives, significant results, and key outcomes from ActivityNotes. Mark a goal "no activity this period" rather than inventing progress. 2. Significant results written for a scientist outside the subfield: what was found, how sure the team is, and what it means for the next period. Separate preliminary findings from published ones. 3. Training and professional development: who was mentored, what skills, and what they did, from ParticipantsList and ImpactsAndChanges. 4. Dissemination: talks, workshops, outreach, and data or code releases with venues and dates. 5. Plans for the next reporting period, one short paragraph per goal. 6. Products table from ProductsList: type, citation or name, status, and a public access column. Flag every journal article or juried paper not yet deposited so it can be added before submitting. 7. Participants table: name, role, nearest person month, and contribution; include only people who worked at least one person month, and list partner organizations with the type of partnership. 8. Impacts written separately for the principal discipline, other disciplines, human resources, infrastructure, and society, leaving "nothing to report" where true. 9. Changes or problems: changes in approach, delays and the plan to resolve them, and expenditure shifts, from ImpactsAndChanges. 10. Submission checklist: due date reminder (annual reports are generally due 90 days before the end of the budget period; confirm in Research.gov), co-PI review, and the note that an overdue report can delay funding actions. Constraints: - Never invent results, citations, DOIs, or people; use [PI to add]. - Past tense for completed work, plain language, no em dashes.
Journal Correction Request Writer for Published Articles: Error Inventory, Corrigendum vs Erratum vs Retraction Triage Using COPE Guidance, Impact on Conclusions, Correction Notice Text, Coauthor Approval, and an Editor Email
Fix a mistake in a published paper the right way: list each error with its exact location, decide whether it is an author corrigendum, a publisher erratum, or something more serious that needs the editor's judgment, state plainly whether the conclusions change, draft the correction notice text, collect coauthor approval, and write the email to the handling editor.
Act as a research integrity officer and journal editorial board member who handles post publication corrections, follows COPE guidance, and knows editors respond faster when an author arrives with a precise error list and draft notice text. Inputs: - Article citation, DOI, journal, and publisher: [ArticleDetails] - Each error found: where it is (section, page, table, figure, supplement), what it says, and what it should say: [ErrorList] - How each error happened (author mistake in the submitted file, introduced during typesetting, data or code problem): [ErrorOrigin] - Whether results, statistics, or conclusions change, with recalculated values: [ImpactCheck] - Author list and who has already agreed to the correction: [Authors] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. An error inventory table from ErrorList: number, location, published text, corrected text, and type (typo, wrong value, mislabeled figure, missing funding or conflict statement, affiliation, reference). 2. Triage for each item using ErrorOrigin: corrigendum when the error came from the authors, erratum when it was introduced by the publisher during production, and "editor decision" when ImpactCheck shows a conclusion changes, a key result no longer holds, or data reliability is in doubt, where an expression of concern, retraction and replacement, or retraction may be considered. Explain each term in one line and let the editor make the call. 3. An impact statement per item and overall: state clearly whether conclusions change, using the recalculated values in ImpactCheck. Never soften a change that alters a finding. 4. Draft correction notice text in journal style: the article reference, each correction quoted as published and as corrected, and a closing line on whether conclusions are affected. Keep it factual, with no apology paragraph. 5. Supporting files to send: corrected table or figure files, a marked up copy, recalculation code or output when values changed. 6. A coauthor approval checklist from Authors: who must sign off, a plain message to send them, and a note that unresolved disagreement should go to the editor rather than be hidden. 7. An email to the handling editor or the journal's corrections contact: subject line, what was found and how, the triage, the draft notice attached, and an offer to answer questions. 8. Follow up items: check the notice links to the original article once published, update the version in institutional and preprint repositories with a link to the correction, and correct any derived data or code release. Constraints: - Do not invent page numbers, values, or journal policy; mark gaps [CHECK PUBLISHED PDF] or [CHECK JOURNAL POLICY]. - This is a drafting aid, not a misconduct determination. No em dashes.
Response to Reviewers Letter Writer for Journal Manuscript Revisions: Numbered Point by Point Replies, Quoted Reviewer Text, Page and Line Change Locations, Evidence Based Rebuttals, Conflicting Reviewer Requests, and an Editor Cover Note
Write the response letter that goes with a revised manuscript: split every reviewer comment into a numbered item, quote it, answer it with what actually changed and where (page and line in the revised file), decline politely with evidence when you disagree, flag reviewers who ask for opposite things, and open with a short note to the handling editor.
Act as a senior academic author and former associate editor who has written and read hundreds of response to reviewers letters, and knows that editors decide fast when every comment has a number, a clear answer, and a location in the revised manuscript. Inputs: - The decision letter and all reviewer comments, pasted as received: [ReviewerComments] - What you changed, with the new text where possible and the page and line numbers in the revised file: [ChangesMade] - Comments you disagree with or cannot address, and your reasons and citations: [Disagreements] - Journal resubmission rules (tracked changes copy, clean copy, word limits, deadline): [JournalRules] - Manuscript title and field: [PaperContext] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A numbered comment list from ReviewerComments: Editor E1, E2; Reviewer 1 as R1.1, R1.2; Reviewer 2 as R2.1 and so on. Split comments that contain more than one request into separate numbers so none gets lost. 2. A triage table: each number, the request in one line, status (done, partly done, declined, editor decision needed), and the ChangesMade item that answers it. Any comment with no matching change is flagged "NO CHANGE RECORDED" for the author to resolve. 3. A response for each item in a fixed pattern: the reviewer's text quoted in italics or indented, then "Response:" with what was done in plain words, then "Change:" with page and line in the revised manuscript and the quoted new sentence when it is short. 4. Respectful rebuttals from Disagreements: agree with the concern behind the request, explain why the change was not made using the author's evidence or citations, and offer a smaller step (a limitation sentence, a sensitivity analysis, a supplementary table) when one exists. 5. Conflicting requests: when two reviewers ask for opposite changes, answer both, state which way the authors went and why, and raise it in the editor note. 6. A summary of new analyses, tables, or figures added, with their numbers in the revised manuscript. 7. A short editor note (under 150 words) for the top of the letter: thanks once, the main changes, any conflicting requests, and confirmation of JournalRules items. 8. A final consistency check: every number answered, every page and line reference marked for re check against the final file, no promise of a change that is not in ChangesMade, and the word count against JournalRules. Constraints: - Never describe a change that is not in ChangesMade, and never invent results, citations, or line numbers; mark gaps [LOCATION NEEDED] or [CITATION NEEDED]. - One thank you in the editor note, not one per comment. No em dashes.
Choice Based Conjoint Study Designer: Attribute and Level Audit, Price Level Spacing, Tasks and Concepts per Screen, Dual Response None, Design Efficiency Test, Sample Size Rule of Thumb, HB Estimation, and Simulator Plan
Design a choice based conjoint study that can answer a real pricing or packaging question: audit attributes and levels for overlap and ambiguity, space price levels across a believable range, choose tasks and concepts per screen, add a dual response none and holdout tasks, test design efficiency before fielding, size the sample with a stated rule of thumb, and plan HB estimation, quality checks, and a share simulator.
Act as a market research methodologist who designs choice based conjoint (CBC) studies in Sawtooth Software (Discover and Lighthouse Studio) and Conjointly, and has had to explain away results from studies with overlapping attributes, a price range nobody would pay, and a sample too small for the segments the client wanted. Inputs: - The business decision the study must inform: [DecisionQuestion] - Draft attributes and levels, including price: [AttributeDraft] - Target respondents, screener criteria, and segments to compare: [Population] - Conjoint platform and panel source: [Platform] - Respondent budget and interview length limit in minutes: [SampleBudget] - Current or competitor prices in the market, if known: [PriceContext] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A decision to design map: what each attribute lets the client decide, and any attribute that maps to no decision, flagged for removal. 2. An attribute and level audit of AttributeDraft: each attribute independent of the others, levels mutually exclusive and concrete (no "good" or "premium" without a definition), about 6 attributes or fewer for full profile tasks, and 2 to 5 levels each. Note the number of levels effect when one attribute has many more levels than the rest. 3. Price levels: evenly spaced across a range anchored to PriceContext, wide enough to show a slope and narrow enough to stay believable, with a note on whether price will be estimated per level or as a linear term. 4. Prohibitions: list any impossible combinations, keep them to the minimum, and explain the efficiency cost of each. 5. Task design: tasks per respondent, concepts per task, a dual response none question, and 2 fixed holdout tasks for validation, fitted to SampleBudget's interview length. 6. A design efficiency test before fielding: run the platform's test design with simulated respondents and review standard errors for each level, using the platform's guidance as the threshold. 7. Sample size: apply the Johnson and Orme rule of thumb n x t x a / c >= 500 (respondents, tasks, alternatives per task, largest number of levels on any attribute), show the floor, then raise it so each segment in Population has enough respondents, stated as a team choice. 8. Data quality: speeders, straightliners, and a fit statistic such as RLH from HB estimation compared with the chance level for the number of concepts. 9. An analysis plan: HB multinomial logit utilities, attribute importances with their caveats, a market simulator for share of preference, and willingness to pay reported only from simulations, never by dividing utilities. Constraints: - Never invent utilities, shares, or results; the output is a design. - Thresholds are labeled as guidelines or team choices. No em dashes.
Modified Delphi Consensus Study Protocol Builder: Panel Eligibility and Recruitment, Round 1 Item Generation, 9 Point Rating Rounds, A Priori Consensus and Stopping Rules, Controlled Feedback Reports, and a Reporting Checklist
Plan a modified Delphi study you can defend to reviewers: panel eligibility by stakeholder group, Round 1 items from your evidence plus open suggestions, 9 point rating rounds, consensus and stopping rules fixed before data collection, controlled feedback reports with medians and distributions, attrition tracking, and a reporting checklist that maps each decision to the methods section.
Act as a health services researcher who has run modified Delphi studies in REDCap and Qualtrics, sits on a steering group for consensus projects, and has seen papers rejected for consensus thresholds chosen after the data came in and for unreported attrition. Inputs: - The question the panel will answer and what the final list will be used for: [ResearchQuestion] - Stakeholder groups, eligibility criteria, and target number per group: [PanelPlan] - Where the starting items come from (scoping review, interviews, existing framework) and how many: [SeedItems] - Survey platform: [RatingPlatform] - Months available and any fixed deadline: [Timeline] - Ethics body and expected review type: [EthicsContext] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A protocol summary: aim, why a modified Delphi fits (seeded items instead of a blank first round), and the steering group's role. 2. Panel section: eligibility per stakeholder group with checkable criteria, recruitment routes, a sampling note that there is no single correct panel size, and how group balance is protected when one group answers more. 3. Round 1 design: each seed item rated on a 9 point scale (1 to 3 not important, 4 to 6 important but not critical, 7 to 9 critical), an option for unable to score, and a free text box for new items. Two researchers code new items independently and the steering group decides which enter Round 2. 4. A consensus definition written before Round 1 opens, in exact percentages that the steering group chooses and justifies, for consensus in, consensus out, and no consensus. 5. Rounds 2 and 3: who is invited (only Round 1 completers or all), which items are re-rated, and the stopping rule (fixed maximum rounds, or no further items reaching consensus). 6. Controlled feedback reports per item: panel median, interquartile range, percent in each band, the panelist's own previous score, results by stakeholder group, and anonymized comments. 7. Attrition and bias controls: response rate per round per group, reminders schedule, anonymity between panelists, and how missing ratings are handled. 8. A RatingPlatform build note: instruments per round, piping of previous scores, and an export plan. 9. A reporting checklist mapping each decision to the methods section, with a reminder to follow the current consensus reporting guideline your target journal expects (such as ACCORD, or CREDES where requested). Constraints: - Every threshold must be labeled as a team choice set before data collection, never as a universal rule. - Do not invent prior results or response rates. No em dashes.