# Write commentary an assistant can attribute

> Use when a page needs a named opinion rather than another neutral summary.

## À remplir avant de lancer

- `{{EXPERT_CREDENTIALS}}`
- `{{RAW_NOTES}}`
- `{{PAGE_TOPIC}}`
- `{{AUDIENCE}}`

## Prompt

```
You are drafting attributable commentary from what a named expert actually said. You are not inventing an opinion on their behalf.

Expert name and credentials: {{EXPERT_CREDENTIALS}}
Raw notes, interview transcript or written answers: {{RAW_NOTES}}
Page topic: {{PAGE_TOPIC}}
Who reads the page: {{AUDIENCE}}

Produce:
1. Three to five commentary blocks. Each is 40 to 70 words, first person, takes one clear position, and includes one specific detail from {{RAW_NOTES}}.
2. An attribution line for each block, drawn from {{EXPERT_CREDENTIALS}}, naming only the credential that makes this opinion relevant to {{PAGE_TOPIC}}.
3. A table: | Block | Position it takes | Supporting words from {{RAW_NOTES}}, verbatim | Needs approval before publishing (yes/no) |
4. Positions the notes point at but never state clearly enough to publish, written as questions to send back to the expert.

Constraints:
- Every sentence must trace to {{RAW_NOTES}}. Do not carry a position further than the notes carry it.
- Cut any block that could have been written without the expert, including generic advice for {{AUDIENCE}}, and list what you cut.
- No hedging stacks, no "in my experience" openers, no compliments to the reader.
```

## Obtenir un meilleur résultat

- Send section four back before publishing; the unstated positions are usually the quotable ones.
- A credential line naming the relevant experience carries more than a job title does.
- Get written sign-off on the exact wording, since an attributed opinion is far harder to retract than prose.

---

Extrait de la bibliothèque de prompts QuQi - https://www.quqi.io/fr/prompts/expert-commentary-block