Every driver's-seat technique

Three genuinely different versions, tradeoffs explained, no recommendation until you ask.

Why it matters: Accepting the first output is how the AI ends up making your strategic choices. Three real alternatives put the decision back on your desk.

“Give me three genuinely different approaches — not three variations on the same idea. For each, briefly explain its strengths, weaknesses, and when it would be the right choice. Do not recommend one unless I ask; the choice is mine.”

One conservative, one moderate, one aggressive version.

Why it matters: Risk tolerance is a client-counseling decision, not an AI default. Seeing the spectrum makes the risk choice explicit and yours.

“Present a spectrum of versions: one conservative, one moderate, and one aggressive. Identify exactly what makes each more or less risky, so I can make the risk call myself.”

Two or three different ways to organize the document before any drafting.

Why it matters: Structure is the most consequential — and least visible — choice the AI makes for you. Surface it before words get written.

“Before drafting anything, show me 2–3 different ways this could be organized (for example: by issue, by chronology, by strength of argument). Explain what each structure emphasizes and de-emphasizes. I will pick one before you draft.”

At least one alternative that questions your framing of the problem.

Why it matters: The most dangerous prompt is one built on a flawed premise the AI politely accepts. Make it earn its keep by pushing back once.

“Include at least one option that challenges my framing of the problem — an approach I do not appear to have considered, or a reason the question I asked may not be the right question. Be direct about it.”

Options presented without ranking — you rank them.

Why it matters: Even the order of a list nudges your choice. An unranked menu keeps the evaluation muscle yours.

“Present the options in no particular order and without signaling a favorite — no "best," no ordering by preference, no subtle steering. After I have reacted, you may tell me if you see something I missed.”

A comparison table: each option against the criteria that matter.

Why it matters: Lawyers compare; they don’t just consume. A tradeoff table is the difference between being briefed and being sold.

“Summarize the alternatives in a side-by-side comparison: for each option, list its key advantages, key risks, and what it requires from me or the client. Keep the comparison neutral.”

For key sentences, two or three phrasings to pick from.

Why it matters: Word choice is advocacy. Picking between phrasings keeps you writing, not just approving.

“For the most consequential sentences (openings, thesis sentences, requests for relief, key characterizations), give me 2–3 alternative phrasings to choose from rather than settling on one.”