Date: {{current_date_full_with_day}}

Hey {{first_name | AI Visionaries}},

I've watched serious decisions rest on a single number nobody had verified.

Not a wrong number. An unchecked one. Usually a pipeline figure built from market sizing rather than named opportunities.

The memo around it always looks rigorous. Options compared. Risks listed. Recommendation clear.

What it never does is separate what we know from what we believe.

So we built a Claude skill that forces the separation.

You paste in whatever you actually have → meeting notes, a call transcript, half a spreadsheet, a voice note you dictated between meetings. It gives back a two-page decision memo:

→ The decision, stated as a real question with real options
→ A table splitting verified facts from assumptions, visibly
→ Options scored on weights that favour execution capacity, cash timing and relationship risk over headline upside
→ The recommendation, in the first three lines
→ What new evidence would change the call

One rule is built in deliberately. When the inputs are weak, it recommends a pilot, a single validating step, or a considered delay. It will not dress a large commitment in cautious language.

Because in reality the plan rarely fails on strategy. It fails because of reasons very typical to your company.

The skill asks about those things before it recommends anything.

Free to download for my subscribers.

By the way the skill does have elements that make it tailored for the GCC (Gulf), region but if you ask Claude or ChatGPT to adapt it for your region, it will do so - making it useful for your country as well.

Best regards

Renjit

PS: If you are the CEO /Owner of a business and want to claim a free 1:1 assessment (worth AED 999), with me to see how you can apply AI in your business, then write to me at [email protected]. Quote code “JLY26” -only for the month of July.