# NotebookLM Strategy Prompts — 7 Decision Prompts for Gemini Notebook > Copy-paste Gemini Notebook prompts for turning research into decisions: competitor briefs, decision frameworks, strategic memos, scenario planning and roadmaps - credited to Sourclip. _Markdown version of https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions — for AI and LLM crawlers. Content is identical to the web page._ --- Prompts that turn research into a call - a decision framework, a steelman debate, a 30-day plan or a roadmap - for founders and teams who have to act on what the sources say. ## Competitor research brief - Goes in: Chat message A clean teardown of every competitor mentioned in the notebook — positioning, pricing, gaps. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/competitor-research-brief) ``` Build a competitor research brief from these sources. For each competitor named in the notebook, capture: - Positioning statement, in their own words where possible. - Target customer (be specific: role, company size, use case). - Pricing model and any published prices. - The 3 features they emphasize most in their messaging. - Their stated weaknesses, admitted gaps, or roadmap items. - Recurring customer complaints surfaced in the sources. End with a one-page "where we can differentiate" summary listing the 3–5 most defensible wedges. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/competitor-research-brief.md) ## Steelman the opposing views - Goes in: Chat message Build the strongest possible version of each side in the notebook — then judge the debate on merit. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/steelman-debate) ``` Stage a steelman debate between the opposing viewpoints in this notebook. Step 1 — Identify the 2–3 main viewpoints the sources represent. Name each one. Step 2 — For each viewpoint, write its steelman: - Strongest core argument in 2–3 sentences. - The 3 best pieces of evidence from the notebook supporting it. - The most charitable interpretation of its weakest point. Step 3 — Cross-examination. For each pair of viewpoints, list the 2 sharpest questions one side would ask the other, and the strongest reply available in the sources. Step 4 — Verdict. Which view holds up best given only the notebook evidence? Explain in 3–5 sentences what would have to change for a different view to win. No straw men. If a viewpoint's evidence is thin, say so explicitly — don't fabricate support. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/steelman-debate.md) ## Build a decision framework from sources - Goes in: Chat message Convert raw research into a weighted scoring matrix you can actually act on. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/decision-framework-builder) ``` Build a structured decision framework using the sources in this notebook. Assume I have to choose between [INSERT OPTIONS HERE — e.g., "Option A vs Option B vs Option C"]. Produce: 1. The 5–7 criteria that actually matter for this decision, drawn from the sources. For each, explain why it matters and which source(s) elevate it. 2. A weight (1–5) for each criterion, with a one-sentence justification grounded in the notebook. 3. A scoring table: rows are options, columns are criteria, cells are 1–5 scores with a one-line citation from the sources for each score. 4. The dominant option after weighted scoring, and the one criterion that — if reweighted — would flip the result. 5. The two questions I still need answers to before committing, and which kind of source would most likely contain them. If the notebook doesn't support a confident score, write "Insufficient evidence" rather than guessing. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/decision-framework-builder.md) ## Turn sources into a strategic memo - Goes in: Chat message A founder-grade internal memo: situation, options, recommendation — every line backed by your notebook. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/strategic-memo) ``` Write a strategic memo for a small leadership team using only this notebook. Use this exact structure: 1. Situation — 3–5 sentences on what's actually going on, drawn from the strongest signals in the sources. 2. Why now — the 2–3 forces in the notebook making this urgent rather than something to revisit next quarter. 3. Options — 3 distinct paths forward. For each: a one-line description, the strongest source supporting it, the trade-off it accepts, and the type of team best suited to it. 4. Recommendation — pick one. Defend it in 4–6 sentences using specific sources. 5. What would change my mind — 3 concrete future signals that would invalidate the recommendation. 6. Open questions for the team — 3 questions worth debating before locking in. Write it terse and confident. No throat-clearing. No "this memo covers." If a section can't be supported by the notebook, write "Not supported by current sources" rather than fabricating. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/strategic-memo.md) ## Turn research into a 30-day action plan - Goes in: Chat message Turns a notebook into a week-by-week plan with concrete milestones instead of a list of takeaways. For operators and founders moving from research to execution. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/30-day-action-plan) ``` Convert this notebook into a 30-day action plan for someone applying what they just learned. Structure exactly as: Goal — In one sentence, the single most important outcome the sources suggest aiming for over the next 30 days. Week 1 — Foundation. 3 actions. For each: what to do (one verb-led line), why (cite the source that supports it), and the smallest credible "done" condition. Week 2 — Build. 3 actions, same format. These should compound on Week 1. Week 3 — Pressure-test. 3 actions, same format. These should expose whether the plan is working. Week 4 — Decide. 2 actions, same format, plus one explicit decision point: "If X by end of week 4, do Y; otherwise Z." Both branches must be grounded in the notebook. Constraints: - No action longer than one sentence. - Every action must cite a source. - If two actions overlap, merge them. Twelve actions max across the whole plan. - If the notebook can't support a week, write "Not enough evidence for Week N — here's what to research first" instead of fabricating tasks. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/30-day-action-plan.md) ## Project three plausible future scenarios - Goes in: Chat message Build optimistic, base-case, and pessimistic 24-month scenarios from the notebook — each with leading indicators and a probability weight. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/future-scenarios) ``` Use only the evidence in this notebook to project three future scenarios over the next 24 months. For each of Optimistic, Base Case, and Pessimistic, produce: 1. Headline outcome in one sentence. 2. The 3 key drivers (each with the source that supports it) that would push the world toward this scenario. 3. The strongest piece of counter-evidence in the notebook that argues against this scenario. 4. Three leading indicators — concrete, observable signals over the next 6 months that would tell you this scenario is unfolding. 5. The first decision someone reading this should make differently if they believed this scenario. End with: - A probability you'd assign each scenario, summing to 100%, with a one-sentence justification grounded in the sources. - The single signal that, if observed, would most strongly shift weight between scenarios. Do not invent drivers or indicators the notebook can't support. Speculation is fine; fabrication is not. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/future-scenarios.md) ## Turn research into an implementation roadmap - Goes in: Chat message A dependency-mapped roadmap for a team — milestones, critical path, owner archetypes, risks, and kill criteria. Shared by [Sourclip](https://www.sourclip.com/resources/prompts/implementation-roadmap) ``` Convert this notebook into an implementation roadmap for a small team that has to actually ship the thing the sources describe. Produce: 1. End-state in one sentence — what "done" looks like, grounded in the sources. 2. Milestones — 4–6 named milestones in execution order. For each: the outcome, the sources that justify it, and the single thing that proves the milestone is real. 3. Dependencies — for each milestone, list what must be true before it can start. Highlight the critical path explicitly. 4. Workstreams and owner archetypes — 3–5 parallel workstreams with the kind of person who should run each (e.g. "infra-leaning engineer", "design-partner manager"). Don't invent names. 5. Risks and kill criteria — the 3 risks most likely to derail the roadmap, and the observable signal that should trigger a stop or pivot for each. 6. The smallest possible week-1 commit — one concrete action that could begin tomorrow and would still produce useful information even if the whole roadmap is later scrapped. ``` [Permalink](https://gemini-notebook-hub.online/prompts/strategy-decisions/implementation-roadmap.md)