Work out who owns each action from messy meeting notes
An action register with deliverable, source quote, owner and deadline each marked stated, proposed or not stated.
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 →
ChatGPT: drafts the table and register, you check both
ChatGPT drafts the candidate action table, then the register. You check the table, then the final copy.
You
You: Get inputs ready
ChatGPT
ChatGPT: Draft action table
You
You: Check each row
ChatGPT
ChatGPT: Draft the register
You
You: Check and decide
Get the inputs ready
Use:You
Have ready: the meeting notes or permitted call transcript with speaker quotes and source locations, plus the role directory.
Check
Confirm permission, audience limits and source completeness before uploading. Keep originals available for the row check.
Draft the candidate action table
Use:ChatGPT
Ask ChatGPT for one row per candidate action with speaker, quote, source location and context, commitments separated from suggestions.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Task: Unreviewed candidate action table. Using only the supplied inputs, build one row per candidate action with original speaker, exact quote, source location and context; separate actionable commitments from suggestions and mark deliverable, owner and deadline independently stated, proposed or still to confirm. Keep source identifiers, dates, quotes and uncertainties explicit. Missing or ambiguous facts are still to confirm. Draft only; do not send, publish, change records, assign work or run commands.
Check each row against the inputs
Use:You
Read each row against the original inputs, correct errors and record unresolved fields; ask for fixes in the same chat.
Check
Compare original quote and context against each action. Do not infer acceptance from the role directory.
Draft the action register
Use:ChatGPT
In the same chat, paste the corrected table and ask for the draft action register, leaving unresolved acceptance questions open.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Task: Unreviewed working copy: Draft action register retaining deliverable, source quote/context/location, owner and deadline with independent stated/proposed/still-to-confirm state; unresolved acceptance questions remain open. Use only the checked table and supplied source copy to prepare an action register retaining deliverable, source quote, context, location, owner and deadline with independent stated/proposed/still-to-confirm states; leave unresolved acceptance questions open and use the role directory for identity only. Preserve source locations and all unresolved fields. Draft only; do not send, publish, change records, assign work or run commands.
Check the register and decide
Use:You
Check the working copy against the checked table and original inputs; keep unresolved questions and stop at the checked draft.
Check
Check stated owners accepted and deadlines match the source. Role membership is not acceptance; no real-world action occurs.
Gemini Notebook builds the cited table, Claude drafts
Gemini Notebook builds the cited action table. Claude drafts the register from the checked table. You check both and decide.
You
You: Set up notebook
Gemini Notebook
Gemini Notebook: Build cited table
You
You: Check the table
Claude
Claude: Draft the register
You
You: Check and decide
Set up the notebook
Use:You
Create a notebook in Gemini Notebook and add only the permitted sources: meeting notes or call transcript, plus the role directory.
Check
Check the source list against this review; keep unrelated material out and web research off.
Build the cited action table
Use:Gemini Notebook
Ask Gemini Notebook the source questions and build the candidate action table as one cited table, one row per action.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Task: Candidate action table retaining original speaker, quote, source location and context; actionable commitments separated from suggestions; deliverable, owner and deadline each independently marked stated, proposed or still to confirm. Which original statements are commitments or suggestions? Who said each, where, and what deliverable, owner, deadline and evidence of acceptance are actually stated or proposed? Use only the selected review sources. Build the table: one row per candidate action with original speaker, exact quote, source location and context; separate actionable commitments from suggestions and mark deliverable, owner and deadline independently stated, proposed or still to confirm. Keep the citation on every row. Mark anything ambiguous as unresolved rather than guessing. Do not import web sources or perform external actions.
Check the table and citations
Use:You
Check the exported table against the original inputs, open every citation and correct it; mark unsettled items unresolved.
Check
Compare original quote and context against each action. Do not infer acceptance from the role directory.
Draft the register from the table
Use:Claude
Paste the checked table and cited answers into Claude; ask for the draft register, one section per action, unresolved questions listed.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Task: Unreviewed working copy: Draft action register retaining deliverable, source quote/context/location, owner and deadline with independent stated/proposed/still-to-confirm state; unresolved acceptance questions remain open. Draft the action register from the checked table and cited answers: one section per candidate action with its deliverable, owner and deadline states, keeping each section's source reference, and list every unresolved question with its reference. Use only the checked table and cited answers; do not choose new facts, do not infer missing values, and mark anything unclear as unresolved. Draft only; do not send, publish, change records, assign work or run commands.
Check the register and decide
Use:You
Reconcile the draft against the checked table, cited answers and original inputs; keep unresolved questions and stop.
Check
Check stated owners accepted and deadlines match the source. Role membership is not acceptance; no real-world action occurs.
You build and write; Gemini flags, Grammarly proofreads
You build the table and write the register. Gemini only flags possible issues; Grammarly only fixes language.
You
You: Build table by hand
Gemini
Gemini: Flag possible issues
You
You: Check every row
You
You: Write the register
Grammarly
Grammarly: Proofread language only
You
You: Check and decide
Build the action table by hand
Use:You
Have ready: meeting notes or permitted call transcript with speaker quotes and source locations. Build one row per action in a spreadsheet.
Check
Check your organisation permits placing the working copy in Gemini and Grammarly. Leave missing facts still to confirm. Keep the original sources separately for the later checks.
List possible structural issues
Use:Gemini
Ask Gemini to flag possible structural issues only: duplicate rows, missing quotes or locations, unsupported owner or deadline fields.
Details
What to paste into the tool
Task: Possible structural issues in candidate action table. List possible issues involving duplicate candidate rows, missing original quotes or source locations, and owner or deadline marked stated when the quote does not visibly support that field. Return row IDs and reasons only; do not alter values, interpret acceptance or execute any step.
Check every row and correct
Use:You
Check flagged and unflagged rows against the originals, correct the table and keep unresolved classifications open.
Check
Compare quote and context against each action; do not infer acceptance from the role directory.
Write the register from the table
Use:You
Write the action register from the checked table, keeping deliverable, quote, owner and deadline states; the role directory is for identity only.
Check
Check content and structure against the table before the language-only pass.
Proofread the language only
Use:Grammarly
Open the working copy in Grammarly. Take spelling, grammar and punctuation suggestions one at a time; reject any that change meaning, names, IDs or dates.
Check the proofread copy and decide
Use:You
Compare the proofread copy with the checked table and originals; keep unresolved decisions open.
Check
Check stated owners accepted and deadlines match the source. Role membership is not acceptance; no real-world action occurs.
Compare the three approaches
Option A: ChatGPT: drafts the table and register, you check both
Best when: You want ChatGPT to propose both the table and final wording
What it does: ChatGPT drafts both; you check the table and the register
Strong at: The checked table feeds the second drafting pass directly
Limit: A missed error in the first table can carry into the draft
Free plan: Yes, limited (uploads and analysis capped)
Option B: Gemini Notebook builds the cited table, Claude drafts
Best when: You want source citations behind the table and a separate drafter
What it does: Gemini Notebook cites, Claude drafts; you check both
Strong at: Citations open in context against the uploaded sources
Limit: Manual transfer from the notebook to the drafting chat
Free plan: Gemini Notebook: Yes; Claude: Yes
Option C: You build and write; Gemini flags, Grammarly proofreads
Best when: Classification and wording must stay with the responsible person
What it does: You build and write; Gemini flags, Grammarly proofreads
Strong at: AI never chooses the content of the table
Limit: Gemini markets generic analysis; this exact scan is not stated
Free plan: Yes
Before you paste into any AI tool, remove any confidential information. Put it back at the end.
Compare original quote and context against each candidate action. Separate commitments from discussion; do not infer acceptance from a role directory.
Chair, or the seller for a customer-call variant, checks every stated owner and deadline against the source and verifies that each stated owner accepted the assignment. Role membership is not acceptance; missing fields remain not stated and proposals remain unconfirmed.
Check organisational permission and source/audience restrictions before uploading operational material. Stop at the reviewed draft; no real-world next action occurs.
Check the result against your original inputs. Approve it before sharing or acting.
What still needs checking
Not yet confirmed: actual input size, account feature access, quotas and organisational permission to upload the confidential material. No scenario was executed.
Source inconsistency: one step also names "Meeting notes, shorthand actions and participant role directory", which is not a separate starting input or output.