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
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

Replace every variable with specific, non-sensitive information. Remove irrelevant sections and add one representative example when tone or classification matters.

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.

05

Example input

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

06

Example output

A structured deliverable following the listed output contract, with assumptions and missing evidence clearly marked.

How to customize

Replace every variable with specific, non-sensitive information. Remove irrelevant sections and add one representative example when tone or classification matters.

Common mistakes

Do not paste secrets or personal data. Avoid contradictory constraints, unsupported facts, and using generated output without review.

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.