How Journalists Use AI

You are a subeditor helping a reporter write headlines and social copy for a story that is already finished, edited, and fact-checked.

The full article text (the ONLY source of facts you may use): {{article_text}}

Publication and audience: {{outlet_and_audience}}

Produce:
1. Six headline options — a mix of straight/informative and more engaging, all under {{headline_char_limit}} characters, counting characters for each.
2. One standfirst/subhead of 20–30 words.
3. Three social posts: one for X, one for LinkedIn, one for Instagram, each in the outlet's voice.

Rules:
- Use only facts, names, numbers, and quotes that appear in the article text. Do not add, sharpen, or extrapolate any claim — if a headline would need a fact that is not in the text, do not write that headline.
- No overstatement: the headline must be supportable by the body of the story, not a stronger version of it.
- Preserve the exact spelling of every name and place.
- Flag any option that leans on the single strongest claim, so I can check it is not overselling.

You are helping a reporter mine a cleaned interview transcript. Work only from the transcript I paste — do not add context or interpretation from outside it.

Interview transcript with timestamps: {{transcript}}

What the story is about: {{story_focus}}

Produce:
1. A 150-word summary of what the source said, in neutral language.
2. The eight most quotable passages, each copied word for word with its timestamp, so I can locate and verify it against the audio.
3. Three follow-up questions the interview left unanswered.

Rules:
- Quote verbatim. Never smooth, paraphrase, or "clean up" a quote and present it inside quotation marks — reproduce the transcript's exact words.
- Do not attribute any statement the transcript does not clearly attribute to the source.
- Where the transcript marks a word as [inaudible] or the meaning is unclear, keep the marker and flag it — do not guess what was said.
- Add no facts, dates, or names that are not in the transcript.

You are a research assistant helping a reporter find leads in a long public document. Work strictly from the document text I paste — treat everything you produce as an unverified lead I will confirm myself.

Document (public record): {{document_text}}

What I am looking into: {{beat_or_angle}}

Produce:
1. A one-paragraph plain-language summary of what the document is and covers.
2. Up to eight potential story leads. For each: the claim or figure, the exact page or section where it appears, and why it might be newsworthy.
3. Any internal contradictions or figures that do not reconcile, quoting both places.
4. A list of what is notably missing or unexplained.

Rules:
- Cite a page or section reference for every claim. If you cannot point to where something is in the document, do not include it.
- Use only the document. Do not add background, context, or figures from your own knowledge — if outside context is needed, write [VERIFY: needs external reporting] instead.
- Do not infer intent or wrongdoing; describe only what the document states.

You are helping a reporter prepare for an interview. Organize the material I give you into a prep brief — do not add biographical facts, career history, or quotes about this person from your own knowledge.

Who I am interviewing and their role: {{interviewee}}

Background I have gathered and verified (the only facts to rely on): {{verified_background}}

The story and what I need from this interview: {{interview_goal}}

Produce:
1. A half-page brief organizing my verified background into: who they are, why they matter to this story, and known points of tension or sensitivity.
2. Twelve questions ordered from rapport-building to the hardest accountability questions, each open-ended.
3. For each tough question, a likely deflection and a follow-up that closes the door on it.

Rules:
- Use only the background I provided. Do not state any fact about this person that is not in my notes — where a useful fact is missing, write [RESEARCH: confirm independently] instead of supplying one.
- Do not fabricate prior quotes, votes, dates, or affiliations.
- Keep questions neutral and non-leading.

You are an editor adapting an already-published, fact-checked story for a different audience. You may change wording, structure, and reading level. You may not change, add, or remove any fact.

Original story (the fixed source of every fact): {{original_story}}

New audience and format: {{target_audience}}

Reading level / length target: {{level_and_length}}

Produce the adapted version, then a short "changes log."

Rules:
- Preserve every name, number, date, and direct quote exactly as written. Do not round figures, update them, or rephrase anything inside quotation marks.
- Explain jargon in plain terms without introducing any new claim or example not in the original.
- If a sentence cannot be simplified without a fact I did not provide, leave it and note it in the changes log rather than inventing detail.
- If translating, mark the output as machine-translated and flag idioms or legal/technical terms a bilingual editor should confirm.

You are helping a reporter triage a batch of PUBLIC records to decide what to read first. Everything you return is a candidate flag I will open and read myself.

Records (public documents, pasted or listed): {{records}}

What I am hunting for: {{search_criteria}}

Produce:
1. A ranked shortlist of the entries most likely to match my criteria, each with the document/row identifier and the specific text that triggered the flag.
2. Named entities that recur across the set (people, organizations, amounts, dates), with where they appear.
3. Obvious gaps — missing dates, redactions, or numbering breaks worth questioning.

Rules:
- Point to a document ID, page, or row for every flag. If you cannot cite where a match is, do not list it.
- Use only the records provided. Add no outside context, and do not infer motive or guilt — describe only what the text shows.
- Where a document is redacted or unclear, say so and flag it for manual review rather than filling the gap.