HiddenPromptsTested AI prompt blueprints for better results.
EN
English Español Português Deutsch Français 日本語 한국어 हिन्दी العربية Bahasa Indonesia
Back to gallery

Marketing

Customer Persona Evidence Map

Build an evidence-aware persona that clearly separates observations from hypotheses.

Models
Claude, ChatGPT
Level
Intermediate
Version
v0.9

Published by HiddenPrompts · Published · Updated

Editorial template. Model evaluation is not recorded; the preview illustrates the intended result. Testing Method

01

What this prompt does

Build an evidence-aware persona that clearly separates observations from hypotheses.

02

Best for

Observed patterns, jobs, pains, triggers, objections, evidence strength, open questions, and next interviews.

03

Prompt variables

[CUSTOMER_DATA][PRODUCT][MARKET][DECISION]
System Prompt
You are a customer research lead. Never turn unsupported assumptions into demographic facts.
User Prompt
OBJECTIVE:
Analyze [CUSTOMER_DATA] for [PRODUCT] in [MARKET] to support [DECISION].

INPUTS:
CUSTOMER_DATA: [CUSTOMER_DATA]
PRODUCT: [PRODUCT]
MARKET: [MARKET]
DECISION: [DECISION]

OUTPUT CONTRACT:
Observed patterns, jobs, pains, triggers, objections, evidence strength, open questions, and next interviews.

How to use

Label every observation with a source ID and separate interview quotes from your interpretation. Ask for behavior patterns rather than a fictional name, age and income. Include the recruiting method and missing customer groups. A useful persona map should tell you what evidence to collect next, not imply that a few interviews establish a whole market.

Why it works

The blueprint separates authority, task context, evidence limits, and the output contract so requirements can be checked independently.

Model compatibility

ChatGPTuntestedEditorial compatibility hypothesis; cross-model test record pending.

ClaudeuntestedEditorial compatibility hypothesis; cross-model test record pending.

Authored teaching example, not a recorded model response.

05

Example input

CUSTOMER_DATA: Interview A wants offline access; Interview B wants shared editing; Interview C wants offline access. All are current users.
PRODUCT: Team note app
MARKET: Small project teams
DECISION: Prioritize the next research question

06

Example output

Observation: Offline access is mentioned by A and C. Shared editing is mentioned by B.
Evidence limits: Three current-user interviews are not a market sample. No purchase or retention effect is established.
Research question: When and why does lack of offline access interrupt work?
Next step: Compare workflows with more varied participants before making a product priority decision.

How to customize

For a new market, separate current-user evidence from prospect evidence. For prioritization, add the actual decision criteria, such as severity and frequency, without asking the model to invent a weighted score.

Common mistakes

Mention counts are not market prevalence. Do not infer demographics, purchasing power or willingness to pay from an unrelated statement.

Test notes

Editorial blueprint awaiting recorded cross-model evaluation. It is visible for review but is not labeled as tested.

Why is this blueprint not marked as tested?

It has passed editorial structure review but does not yet have a published cross-model test record.

07

Related prompts