Turn any AI reply into a strategy session

I used to take the first answer AI gave me

May 28, 2026

For months my prompting was a straight line. Describe the problem, get the solution, move on. It felt efficient. It was also limiting, and I didn't notice until I started watching how the sharper operators I know actually use these tools.

They don't accept the first frame. Before the model converges on anything, they force it to think in several directions at once. Same model, same five minutes, completely different output. The difference wasn't a smarter prompt. It was refusing to let AI hand them a single path and call it done.

Here's the structure that flipped it for me.

Sponsored by

How Jennifer Aniston’s LolaVie brand grew sales 40% with CTV ads

The DTC beauty category is crowded. To break through, Jennifer Aniston’s brand LolaVie, worked with Roku Ads Manager to easily set up, test, and optimize CTV ad creatives. The campaign helped drive a big lift in sales and customer growth, helping LolaVie break through in the crowded beauty category.

*Ad

What the pattern actually does

The shape is simple enough to memorize:

[Problem]. Propose 3 paths: 1. The Aggressive path. 2. The Conservative path. 3. The Contrarian path. List the probability of success for each.

Aggressive means go hard and fast. It bets on your strengths, accepts short-term pain or risk, and tries to win decisively. Conservative means protect what you have. Slower, steadier, built to preserve options and avoid catastrophic downside. Contrarian means ignore the obvious move entirely and try the weird angle, the one nobody in your space is taking, the one that sounds wrong until it doesn't.

Three frames instead of one. That alone changes what comes back.

The probabilities aren't math. They're pressure.

Nobody's running Monte Carlo simulations here. The percentages are a forcing function. When AI assigns 65% to aggressive and 30% to contrarian, you stop treating the contrarian as a throwaway and start asking the real question: what would have to be true for that number to flip? What conditions would make the weird path the right one? Is that world closer than I think?

That question is where the actual thinking starts. Without a number, the contrarian path just looks like a curiosity. With a number attached, it becomes a hypothesis you can stress-test. You start poking at the assumptions under the probability instead of nodding at the path and moving on.

Three paths side by side show you things one answer hides

When you see the options laid out next to each other, you naturally notice what they share and where they split. Sometimes the aggressive and contrarian paths run on the same core mechanism and only differ in timing. Sometimes the conservative path is secretly the riskiest one once you factor in what happens if you wait too long. A single-answer prompt never surfaces any of that. The comparison does the work.

Where to actually use this

The pattern scales to almost any real decision, because every real decision has an aggressive version, a conservative version, and a version that sounds weird until someone with more perspective tells you it's the move.

  1. Pricing. Raise aggressively, hold steady, or undercut the market entirely.

  2. Content strategy. Post daily, post less but bigger, or ignore the algorithm and go niche.

  3. Product launches. Full rollout, beta-only, or skip this feature and ship the next one.

  4. Negotiation prep. Push hard, meet in the middle, or make a completely different ask.

  5. Hiring. Build the team now, stay lean and contract out, or restructure the role entirely.

  6. Partnerships. Go deep with one partner, spread across three, or stay independent and build leverage first.

The prompt just surfaces all three at once instead of defaulting to whatever answer comes first.

Hiring in 8 countries shouldn't require 8 different processes

This guide from Deel breaks down how to build one global hiring system. You’ll learn about assessment frameworks that scale, how to do headcount planning across regions, and even intake processes that work everywhere. As HR pros know, hiring in one country is hard enough. So let this free global hiring guide give you the tools you need to avoid global hiring headaches.

*Ad

Prompt of the day: the three-path strategy session

Copy this and swap in your situation:

I'm trying to [describe your decision]. Propose 3 paths: 1. The Aggressive path. 2. The Conservative path. 3. The Contrarian path. For each, give me the core logic, the key risks, and your estimated probability of success. Then tell me which one you'd pick and why.

The "tell me which one you'd pick" line forces a recommendation instead of a menu. Useful when you're genuinely stuck and just need a push. It also reveals something quieter: if the AI picks conservative and you feel resistant, that resistance is data. If it picks aggressive and you feel relieved, that's data too. The prompt doesn't just generate options. It surfaces your own reaction to them, which is often the clearest signal you have.

One more tweak worth keeping. After you get the three paths, follow up with: "Now assume the aggressive path fails in month two. What's the fastest recovery?" That turns a strategy menu into an actual contingency plan.

Why it works

Most prompts ask for the answer. This one asks for the answer space. You sit with three competing options before collapsing to one, which is how experienced strategists actually think. The intelligence is in the frame, not just the output. You're not asking AI to be smart. You're asking it to be exhaustive before you decide.

Single-answer prompts optimize for speed. Three-path prompts optimize for coverage. When the decision is small, speed wins. When it actually matters, coverage wins. Knowing which mode to reach for is half the skill.

My honest take

If you're making real decisions off a single AI response, you're leaving most of the thinking on the table. I've watched this prompt change calls I was about to make on autopilot, and the contrarian path is almost always the part that earns its keep. More often than I'd expect, it's the one I end up going with.

Pick the realest decision you're sitting on tonight. Paste the prompt in, swap in your situation, and read all three paths before you let yourself pick. The weird one costs you thirty seconds. That's the cheapest strategy session you'll ever run.

“Who is this person again?”

You’ve had that moment. Walking into a call, scrolling through old emails, trying to remember what you promised. Lindy texts you a brief 15 minutes before: attendee context, past discussions, open items, talking points. All pulled automatically. Try Lindy free.

*Ad