Challenge a board paper with questions tied to its evidence
The paper reads well. Before sending it, ask which questions it can answer from its own evidence and which it only sounds ready for.
What you'll make
a short challenge memo with supported answers, missing evidence and questions for the paper’s author.
What you'll need
ChatGPT in your work account and a short proposal with section labels. Allow 20 minutes. Start with the fictional proposal below; use a real confidential paper only where your organisation allows it.
Example result — illustrative memo:
| Question | Evidence in the paper |
|---|---|
| What is the quoted cabinet cost? | £8,000, section 2 |
| Will the room fit the cabinets? | Not answered; survey pending |
| When can installation begin? | Not answered; date unconfirmed |
1. Give the paper a clear source structure
Open ChatGPT and select New chat. Paste the proposal with section labels intact. These labels give you a place to check each answer.
Challenge this proposal as a reader deciding whether the paper is ready for review. Give three important questions. For each, quote the supporting passage and section, or say "not answered". Keep proposed actions separate from confirmed facts. Use no outside evidence.
1. Proposal: replace the archive room's cabinets.
2. Quote: cabinets cost £8,000. Installation and delivery are excluded.
3. A room survey has been requested but is not complete.
4. Installation date has not been confirmed.Why this works: a challenge question becomes useful when the reader can see whether the paper answers it.
What you should see: a supported cabinet-price answer and gaps about fit, excluded costs or timing.
2. Check the answers against the sections
Read each quoted passage. Check that the answer preserves the exclusions and the status of the survey. A question can be sensible even when the suggested answer isn’t supported.
Why this works: the model may try to make the paper complete by filling in what a good proposal would usually say.
What you should see: unanswered questions left open, rather than reassurances about fit or cost.
3. Ask for the author’s next actions
Turn the checked gaps into a short request to the paper's author. For each gap state the evidence or decision needed. Do not approve the proposal, assign an owner or invent an installation date.Why this works: the memo asks for the missing work without pretending the reviewer has made the decision.
What you should see: requests for the survey, excluded charges and a confirmed installation plan.
Check the result
- Does each claimed answer match its cited section?
- Are installation and delivery excluded from the £8,000?
- Are the survey and installation date still unconfirmed?
The usual failure: the memo says the quote is a complete project cost.
Correct the cost answer. Section 2 quotes £8,000 for cabinets only; installation and delivery are excluded. Mark total project cost as not answered. Keep the room survey and installation date unresolved, and request the missing evidence.Worked example
Fictional example. The archive-room paper gives a cabinet price of £8,000, with installation and delivery excluded. A weak memo answers “What will the project cost?” with “£8,000.”
The repaired answer says: “Cabinets: £8,000, section 2. Total project cost: not answered.” That small distinction changes the next action: request the omitted charges before treating the paper as complete.
The memo identifies gaps. It doesn’t replace the board’s judgement or the specialist checks the proposal may need.
Go deeper
Ask what would change the recommendation
Once the missing evidence arrives, ask which question it resolves and which assumptions remain. Keep the new source beside the answer. A longer paper isn’t necessarily a better-supported one.