MODE: Standalone Future Innovation situation: two reusable school-lunch container concepts, with assumptions and testing undefined 🔍 Auto-detected: Priority axes V10 Assumption Depth, V11 Test Rounds, V12 Decisive Test, V7 Reasoning Chain, V2 Change Direction, target gaps V10 Assumption Depth, V11 Test Rounds, V12 Decisive Test, Concept Maturity≈2, Ambition≈2 (based on: reusable container improves a known product category, while testing and assumptions remain undefined) — override anything above by specifying it manually in your brief. TOP-3 DIRECTIONS: 1️⃣ V10 Assumption Depth + V11 Test Rounds + V12 Decisive Test + V7 Reasoning Chain + V2 Change Direction (k=5) — strongest test-and-reasoning chain 🟢 BEST-FIT — READY-TO-USE PROMPT BELOW Target Set covered: Yes; Compatibility: Compatible — Reasoning-chain lead fits the inferred maturity and ambition Core: V10 Assumption Depth + V11 Test Rounds; Weak link: V12 Decisive Test + V2 Change Direction 2️⃣ V10 Assumption Depth + V11 Test Rounds + V12 Decisive Test + V9 Inversion Test + V5 Idea Durability (k=5) — stress-tests assumptions from multiple angles Target Set covered: Yes; Compatibility: Partial — Inversion lead is one ambition level above the inferred level 3️⃣ V10 Assumption Depth + V11 Test Rounds + V12 Decisive Test + V1 Premise Check + V4 Idea Links (k=5) — anchors assumptions to premise and existing ideas Target Set covered: Yes; Compatibility: Compatible — Premise Check aligns with the inferred maturity level ──────────────────── 🟢 READY-TO-USE PROMPT (based on 1️⃣): This prompt gives no conclusion, forecast, feasibility claim, brand recommendation, or verdict; those questions belong to the decision-maker and qualified professionals. Use roles instead of names and generic descriptions instead of brands or confidential internal documents. Restate the future product situation as a reusable food container for school lunches, comparing two unnamed concept directions without deciding between them. Treat any internal target price, launch timing, or other undisclosed planning detail as confidential and do not reproduce exact figures. The object is defined, but the main user needs a sharper role-level description before analysis can be specific. ✏️[MAIN_USER_ROLE] Describe the primary user role, such as child, caregiver, or school staff member, and what matters most to that role. One concept direction is not described in enough detail to compare its innovation logic. ✏️[CONCEPT_A] Provide the first concept in neutral terms, including only its stated intended change. The other concept direction also needs concept-specific detail before a fair comparison. ✏️[CONCEPT_B] Provide the second concept in neutral terms, including only its stated intended change. The look is undecided and is a dependency for Future Design Finder. Do not invent appearance details. Keep the functional scope to what the brief actually states and flag any missing function rather than filling it in. Compare innovation approaches that fit the chosen axes. Label every approach a hypothesis. Keep each approach at the level of a reusable school-lunch container and describe what would change, what assumptions it exposes, and what evidence would be sought. Do not name brands, models, or companies. Do not claim originality, proof, demand, market acceptance, price suitability, timing, patent status, safety status, legal or regulatory status, or technical feasibility. Never present an invented technology as existing. Run the following clarity checks together with me, one paragraph per axis. V10 Assumption Depth: identify the few assumptions most central to each concept, separate observable assumptions from deeper dependencies, and ask me to confirm which assumptions deserve testing first. Mark every assumption explicitly. V11 Test Rounds: define a small test-and-revise cycle for each concept, including what would be observed, how the result would change the next version, and what evidence would be insufficient. V12 Decisive Test: propose candidate deciding tests without declaring a winner, then ask me what result would be considered decisive. V7 Reasoning Chain: map the proposed cause-to-effect chain from product change to intended user outcome and identify where evidence is missing. V2 Change Direction: state exactly what changes between today’s known container category and each concept direction, without assuming unstated features. Use staged work with explicit go or no-go gates. Stage one is framing: confirm the user role, concept boundaries, assumptions, and the two concept directions. Gate: proceed only when both concepts can be described without invented details. Stage two is hypothesis mapping: connect each concept to its assumptions and reasoning chain. Gate: proceed only when the highest-risk assumptions are visible. Stage three is first test design: define lightweight tests and a revision loop for the next 30 days. Gate: proceed only when a test can produce interpretable evidence. Stage four is comparative review: compare evidence against the pre-agreed decision criteria. Gate: do not choose a concept; instead, identify what remains unresolved and what qualified advice is needed. Ask a qualified domain expert about school-lunch use contexts, practical handling needs, cleaning and reuse considerations, and any domain-specific constraints, without requesting a safety or feasibility verdict from the AI. Ask a test-design specialist how to reduce bias, define observable measures, select participants or test settings appropriately, and interpret weak signals. Ask a legal or safety adviser to assess applicable issues directly; do not have the AI conclude legal, regulatory, or safety status. Track risks such as hidden assumptions, ambiguous user needs, biased testing, overinterpreting early feedback, and premature commitment to appearance. Mark a revisit point after the first evidence review and a stop point if the evidence cannot distinguish the concepts or if a qualified adviser identifies an unresolved issue requiring professional judgment. For the first 30 days, create a short action list: clarify the main user role, describe both concepts neutrally, mark every assumption, map the reasoning chains, define the first test and its success or failure interpretation, prepare the expert questions, run the first test-and-revise cycle, and schedule the evidence review. Use the decision date only if it is supplied later. Never invent figures. Throughout the work, label every hypothesis and mark every assumption. Never invent figures. Never present an invented technology as existing. Never choose the concept for me. Never state claims about market, demand, price, timing, patents, safety, legal or regulatory status, or technical feasibility. Treat the output as a discussion aid rather than professional advice. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Keep the comparison balanced and preserve uncertainty rather than converting it into a recommendation. Negative prompt / avoid: premature concept selection, unsupported originality or proof claims, invented features, exact internal figures, named competitors, untested assumptions treated as facts, and appearance decisions before design review ──────────────────── ℹ️ "This tool compares future product innovation directions and builds a discussion prompt; it does not choose for you, state market, price, timing, patent, safety, legal, or feasibility conclusions, or predict how a concept will turn out." Assumptions made: MAIN_USER_ROLE: the primary school-lunch user role was not specified, so the prompt requires it before detailed user-centered analysis. CONCEPT_A: the first concept's innovation direction was not described, so the prompt requires its neutral intended change. CONCEPT_B: the second concept's innovation direction was not described, so the prompt requires its neutral intended change. ❓ Want a different direction? Reply "expand #2" or "expand #3" to get a full prompt built from that candidate instead. 💡 Have a clear brief already and just want one direct prompt? Search "Universal Instruction Generator" on PromptBase for a single-pass generator. ⚙️ "Built for ChatGPT; other AI models, providers, and versions are untested. Use at your own discretion. This tool is not intended as a sole safeguard against attempts to alter its behavior, nor as a substitute for professional legal, financial, and subject-matter advice before acting on its output."