Prepare a review meeting for an incident where people's accounts conflict
A facilitator-reviewed retrospective agenda with disputed events and learning questions, ending at the draft.
Choose one of three approaches. The steps for that option appear below.
Choose an option above. On a phone, swipe the tabs left or right to see all options →
Claude: drafts the timeline and agenda, you check both
Claude drafts the timeline and the agenda in one conversation. You check both against the originals.
You
Collect the inputs
Claude
Draft the timeline
You
Check the timeline
Claude
Draft the agenda
You
Review the agenda
Have ready: timeline, accounts, facilitation rules
Use:You
Collect the incident timeline, attributed accounts and facilitation rules. Keep each item's source ID with the originals.
Check
Check every source ID matches the original inputs, and paste only under plan terms the data owner has accepted.
Draft the fact-versus-claim timeline
Use:Claude
Paste the input set into one Claude chat; ask for the attributed timeline with each source ID, date and uncertainty, for checking in step 3.
Details
What to paste into the tool
From the pasted incident timeline, attributed accounts and facilitation rules, build attributed fact-versus-claim timeline. Output a structured table. Keep every source identifier, relevant date and explicit uncertainty exactly as supplied; mark anything ambiguous as unresolved rather than guessing; use only the supplied operating rules, do not invent policy; minimise personal and personnel data in the output.
Check the timeline against the originals
Use:You
Read the timeline against the original inputs and correct it before anything is drafted from it.
Check
Compare source identifiers, definitions, dates and ambiguous claims against the originals; correct the timeline before handoff.
Draft the agenda from the checked timeline
Use:Claude
In the same chat, ask for the retrospective agenda: disputed events, learning questions, unresolved questions with source references, for review in step 5.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Using the corrected attributed fact-versus-claim timeline and the supplied rules, Prepare retrospective agenda with disputed events and learning questions. Keep every source reference visible, keep disputed or uncertain items explicitly marked, and list unresolved questions with their source references. Draft wording only: do not add facts that are not in the corrected table or the supplied inputs. Keep the wording neutral; do not blame any person.
Final check of the agenda and open questions
Use:You
Read the draft agenda and unresolved questions against the check. The workflow ends at this reviewed draft.
Check
Check every disputed event keeps its source attribution and the language stays neutral. Confirm any next action separately; this ends at a reviewed draft.
You build the timeline by hand; ChatGPT drafts the agenda
You build the timeline by hand. ChatGPT words the agenda from your checked timeline only.
You
Build the timeline
You
Check the timeline
ChatGPT
Draft the agenda
You
Check the agenda
Build the timeline by hand
Use:You
Read the originals and build the attributed timeline locally: each row with its source ID, date and uncertainty marker, for checking in step 2.
Check
Self-check each row against the originals while entering it.
Check the timeline against the originals
Use:You
Check the hand-built timeline against the original inputs and correct it.
Check
Upload only under plan terms the data owner has accepted.
Draft the agenda from the checked timeline
Use:ChatGPT
Paste only the checked timeline; ask for the agenda with disputed events, learning questions and unresolved questions with references, for review in step 4.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Draft the retrospective agenda with disputed events and learning questions from the checked attributed fact-versus-claim timeline pasted below and the supplied rules. Wording only: do not add facts, sources or decisions that are not in the checked table. Keep every source reference visible and list unresolved questions with their source references. Keep the wording neutral; do not blame any person.
Final check of the agenda and open questions
Use:You
Read the draft agenda and open questions against the check. The workflow ends at this reviewed draft.
Check
Check every disputed event keeps its source attribution and the language stays neutral. Confirm any next action separately; this ends at a reviewed draft.
Gemini Notebook: builds and writes, you check and decide
Gemini Notebook builds the cited timeline and writes the agenda. You check the table and make the final choice.
You
Create the notebook
Gemini Notebook
Build the cited timeline
You
Check the table
Gemini Notebook
Write the agenda
You
Review the agenda
Create the notebook with the incident sources
Use:You
Create a new notebook in Gemini Notebook and upload the timeline, attributed accounts and facilitation rules. Keep file names that identify each source.
Check
Upload only under plan terms the data owner has accepted. Check the uploaded set is complete against the original inputs. Free notebooks hold up to 50 sources; check your set fits.
Build the cited timeline and export it
Use:Gemini Notebook
Ask targeted questions to build the timeline table with a citation per row, for checking in step 3. Export to Google Sheets.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Using only the uploaded sources, build attributed fact-versus-claim timeline. Produce it as a data table; describe the rows and columns so each row keeps its source citation, relevant date and any uncertainty. Mark anything ambiguous as unresolved rather than guessing; use only the supplied operating rules.
Check the table against the originals
Use:You
Check the exported table against the original inputs and correct it. Mark anything you cannot confirm as unresolved.
Check
Check every row for a source reference; check missing ones directly against the originals.
Write the agenda from the checked table
Use:Gemini Notebook
Add the corrected table as a source. Ask for the agenda with a citation on each item and unresolved questions listed with references. Neutral language.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Using only the notebook sources, write the retrospective agenda with disputed events and learning questions. Keep each item's source citation. List unresolved questions with their references. Do not settle unclear points by guessing and do not add facts that are not in the sources. Use neutral language.
Final check of the agenda and open questions
Use:You
Read the agenda and open questions against the check, then decide whether it goes forward. The workflow ends at this reviewed copy.
Check
Check every disputed event keeps its source attribution and the language stays neutral. Confirm any next action separately; this ends at a reviewed draft.
Compare the three approaches
Option A: Claude: drafts the timeline and agenda, you check both
Best when: You want one assistant to draft both the timeline and agenda
What it does: Claude drafts both; you check the timeline, then the agenda
Strong at: One conversation holds both stages, so context carries over
Limit: You must re-check every identifier against the originals
Free plan: Yes
Option B: You build the timeline by hand; ChatGPT drafts the agenda
Best when: The extraction itself must stay with people, not AI
What it does: You build the timeline; ChatGPT drafts the agenda
Strong at: AI only sees the checked timeline, never raw inputs
Limit: A row the team missed stays missing from the draft
Free plan: Yes
Option C: Gemini Notebook: builds and writes, you check and decide
Best when: You want cited answers from the uploaded sources
What it does: Gemini Notebook builds and writes; you check and decide
Strong at: Direct-quote citations export with the table to Sheets
Limit: Free notebooks: 50 sources max, 500,000 words or 200 MB each
Free plan: Yes
Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.
Compare the source identifiers, definitions, dates and ambiguous claims against the original inputs; correct the attributed fact-versus-claim timeline before handoff.
Every disputed event retains source attribution; facilitator confirms neutral language. Confirm any next action separately; this workflow ends at a reviewed draft.
Suggestions and draft artefacts only. Do not send, publish, update records, assign people, reserve resources, buy goods or authorise work.
Any safety, legal or employment requirement needs the responsible qualified human; this output is not certification.
Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.
What still needs checking
Whether the supplied inputs already carry stable source IDs or the reviewer must assign them during preparation.
Which account statements count as disputed for this review; the facilitator decides, the workflow only flags conflicts it finds.