Compare Scattered Opinions with Team Collaboration AI: Support a Decision Between Venue Option A and Option B
Practice comparing confirmed facts, evidence, opposing views, and unverified assumptions in one framework without letting AI make the conclusion when team members disagree. Using Team Haneul’s Venue Option A and Option B for the workshop, we identify the decision owner and deadline clearly and leave items for the team to verify before making the final judgment.
Content checked 2026.09.22Copyable prompts
Show contents
Who this is forNon-developers who want to compare multiple people’s opinions with team collaboration AI while keeping final decision responsibility and evidence traceability with the team
What you need
An AI chat tool that accepts text input
Be able to separate each team member’s opinion from confirmed facts
Use fictional examples instead of real confidential or customer information
Compare the AI-generated comparison directly with the source text
01Separate facts from preferences first when there are many opinions
When a team chooses among options, it should separate confirmed facts, personal preferences, and assumptions that have not yet been verified. The opinion that 'Option B is safer' can be based on the fact that it has a larger capacity, but whether registrations will actually exceed capacity and whether Option B can be booked must be checked separately. Team collaboration AI can help split such statements into categories and attach sources, but the final choice must be made by the responsible person.
Category
What AI organizes
What a person checks
Confirmed facts
Information explicitly stated in the source, such as capacity, facilities, and booking confirmation status
Whether it exactly matches the source
Team member opinions
Who prefers which option and what reasons they gave
Whether an opinion was turned into a fact
Unverified assumptions
Premises not yet verified, such as the possibility of registrations exceeding capacity
Whether further verification is needed
Opposing views
Evidence or concerns that differ from the majority view
Whether minority views were omitted
Decision conditions
Decision owner, decision deadline, and items to verify before deciding
Whether the final decision was actually approved
In this fictional case, Team Haneul is choosing a venue for the “Neighborhood Digital Basics Workshop.” Because Option A and Option B differ in verification status and team preferences, we do not reduce the result to a one-line recommendation; we keep the evidence and unverified items together.
02Enter team opinions and shared facts with source tags
The input below is fictional data for practice. Placing a source tag before each statement makes it easier to trace evidence in the result. Different opinions are provided as written instead of being merged.
Sample input
Fictional team: Team Haneul
[Shared-Event-1] Event: Neighborhood Digital Basics Workshop
[Shared-Event-2] Event date: 2026-11-14
[Shared-Event-3] Event time: 14:00–16:00
[Shared-Event-4] Capacity: 30 people
[Shared-Event-5] Audience: local residents
[Shared-Event-6] Fee: none
[Shared-Venue-1] Option A: Civic Center 3rd-floor seminar room, capacity 32 people, projector available, elevator available, booking availability confirmed
[Shared-Venue-2] Option B: district library auditorium, capacity 60 people, booking availability not confirmed
[Shared-Schedule-1] Venue decision deadline: 2026-10-24
[Shared-Schedule-2] Final promotional material deadline: 2026-10-28
[Shared-Schedule-3] Instructor confirmation deadline: 2026-10-30
[Shared-Registration-1] Registrations as of 2026-10-23: 22 people
[Note-Minseo-1] Minseo is the team lead, manages the overall schedule, and is the final decision owner for the venue.
[Note-Minseo-2] Minseo wants to prioritize reviewing Option A because booking availability is confirmed and it can accommodate the capacity of 30 people.
[Note-Junho-1] Junho is responsible for the venue and supplies. He noted that Option A has a capacity of 32 people, has a projector and elevator, and has confirmed booking availability.
[Note-Junho-2] Junho confirmed that Option B has a capacity of 60 people but has not yet confirmed booking availability.
[Note-Seoyeon-1] Seoyeon is responsible for promotion and registration. Registrations as of 2026-10-23 are 22 people, and the final promotional material deadline is 2026-10-28.
[Note-Seoyeon-2] Seoyeon prefers Option A because the venue needs to be confirmed by 2026-10-24 so the venue wording in the promotional material can be finalized reliably.
[Note-Doyun-1] Doyun is responsible for the program and instructor outreach. He prefers Option B, with a capacity of 60 people, in case registrations exceed capacity.
[Note-Doyun-2] Doyun also knows that booking availability for Option B is unconfirmed and wrote that it needs to be checked before the decision.
[Assumption-1] The current data cannot confirm whether registrations will actually exceed the capacity of 30 people.
'Option B has a capacity of 60 people' is a confirmed fact, but 'registrations will exceed capacity' is an assumption. Even if several people prefer Option A, Doyun’s preference for Option B should not be removed. The prompt should also explicitly separate facts, preferences, and assumptions.
03Ask for a comparison structure and verification questions instead of a conclusion
The key is not to ask AI to choose the venue. For each option, have it separate confirmed evidence, opposing views, and unverified assumptions and attach source tags. Also prohibit it from inventing owners, deadlines, or decisions that are not in the data.
Prompt
Using only the fictional input above, compare Team Haneul’s Venue Option A and Option B.
The goal is not for AI to decide the venue, but to organize the evidence so the team can decide.
Use the following format.
- Confirmed facts and evidence for each option
- Team member opinions supporting each option and source tags
- Opposing opinions or concerns for each option and source tags
- Assumptions not confirmed as facts
- Items to verify before deciding
- Decision owner and decision deadline
Rules:
1) Use only names, dates, times, and numbers that appear in the input.
2) Do not omit minority opinions that differ from the majority.
3) Separate confirmed facts from team member preferences.
4) Do not invent owners, deadlines, or decisions that are not in the data; mark them as 'Needs confirmation'.
5) Do not state that Option A or Option B has been finally selected.
6) Whenever possible, attach a [Note-Name-Number], [Shared-Item-Number], or [Assumption-1] source tag to each piece of evidence.
04Keep options, evidence, opposing views, and unverified assumptions together
The following is an edited example created only from the input. It is not an actual AI output and does not decide the venue on the team’s behalf.
Example result
[Example result · not an actual AI output]
Venue option comparison
Option A: Civic Center 3rd-floor seminar room
- Confirmed facts: capacity 32 people, projector available, elevator available, booking availability confirmed. [Shared-Venue-1] [Note-Junho-1]
- Supporting opinion: Minseo wants to prioritize Option A because it can accommodate the capacity of 30 people and booking availability is confirmed. [Note-Minseo-2]
- Supporting opinion: Seoyeon prefers Option A considering the venue decision deadline of 2026-10-24 and the final promotional material deadline of 2026-10-28. [Note-Seoyeon-2] [Shared-Schedule-1] [Shared-Schedule-2]
- Opposing opinion or concern: Doyun believes Option B, with a capacity of 60 people, is better in case registrations exceed capacity. [Note-Doyun-1]
- Unverified assumption: it has not been confirmed whether registrations will actually exceed the capacity of 30 people. [Assumption-1]
Option B: district library auditorium
- Confirmed facts: capacity 60 people, booking availability not confirmed. [Shared-Venue-2] [Note-Junho-2]
- Supporting opinion: Doyun prefers Option B in case registrations exceed capacity. [Note-Doyun-1]
- Opposing opinion or concern: booking availability for Option B has not yet been confirmed. Doyun also wrote that it needs to be checked before the decision. [Note-Doyun-2]
- Current registration status as of 2026-10-23: 22 people. [Shared-Registration-1] [Note-Seoyeon-1]
- Unverified assumption: it has not been confirmed whether registrations will exceed the capacity of 30 people. [Assumption-1]
Items to verify before deciding
- Confirm booking availability for Option B. [Shared-Venue-2]
- The team should determine whether the possibility of registrations exceeding capacity should be used as an actual decision criterion. [Assumption-1]
- Review venue suitability without changing the shared conditions: event date 2026-11-14, time 14:00–16:00, and capacity 30 people. [Shared-Event-2] [Shared-Event-3] [Shared-Event-4]
Decision owner: Minseo [Note-Minseo-1]
Decision deadline: 2026-10-24 [Shared-Schedule-1]
Final choice: not present in the input yet. Minseo must review and decide.
A good comparison should let the team return to the source. The operational certainty of Option A, the extra capacity of Option B, and the unverified status of Option B’s booking availability and the possibility of exceeding capacity should remain separate so other team members can review omissions or overstatements.
05Check that AI does not turn majority opinion into a conclusion or assumptions into facts
AI should not make the choice itself. Turning unconfirmed booking availability for Option B into a confirmed fact, or presenting a decision the team did not approve as Minseo’s decision, distorts the source.
Flawed result
[Common flawed result · not an actual AI output]
Minseo made the final decision to use Option B, the district library auditorium. Option B is more suitable than Option A because its booking is confirmed and registrations are expected to increase to 35 people. Junho should complete the library reservation by 2026-10-25.
The input does not say that Minseo finally chose Option B, and booking availability for Option B is still unconfirmed. The registration forecast and Junho’s new reservation deadline also have no basis. To correct this, remove those claims and return Option B’s booking availability and the possibility of exceeding capacity to 'Needs confirmation'.
Checklist
Final review checklist
- Do the capacities and booking confirmation statuses of Option A and Option B match the input?
- Are the opinions of Minseo, Junho, Seoyeon, and Doyun separated from facts?
- Has a minority view such as Doyun’s preference for Option B been preserved?
- Has the possibility of registrations exceeding capacity been avoided as if it were a confirmed fact?
- Has AI avoided making the final choice on the team’s behalf?
- Do the decision owner and decision deadline match the input evidence?
- Is any real confidential or customer information included?
06After sharing the comparison, have the team record the decision
An AI comparison draft is not a completed decision record. Team members should verify their own opinions and sources and investigate unverified items, after which Minseo should directly approve the final choice and its rationale.
Junho compares the venue facilities and booking confirmation status with the source.
Seoyeon checks the registration status and the description of the promotion schedule.
Doyun checks that the reason for preferring Option B is clearly separated from unverified assumptions.
Minseo directly approves the final venue and decision rationale after the team members review them.
Do not share the AI draft as a confirmed team decision before approval.
Even after the options are organized, an ambiguous execution request can cause confusion again. The next article, “Clarify Vague Work Requests with Team Collaboration AI: Requirements, Completion Criteria, and Clarifying Questions”, explains how to turn Minseo’s short request into a work request the team can review.
What to check yourself
Fictional input data and edited examples · no actual AI execution · checks for matching names, dates, times, numbers, and source tags
Check that every code block role is one of input, prompt, output, bad_output, or checklist
Use regular expressions to verify that names, dates, times, and numbers in the output exist in the input of the same article
Check that the capacities, facilities, and booking confirmation statuses of Option A and Option B match the shared fictional case
Check that Doyun’s preference for Option B and the unverified assumption that registrations may exceed capacity are not omitted
Check that the text does not say AI decided the final venue and that decision owner Minseo is distinguished from the decision deadline
Check that no sentence expresses effects as percentages or multiples
Verification limits
This is not a record of actual AI tool execution, actual venue verification, or an actual registration survey. All cases are fictional data for learning. In real work, people must check the organization’s information security policy and perform the final decision-making and fact verification themselves.
When introducing team collaboration AI for the first time, it is easier to manage if you compare tasks where multiple people repeatedly collect and verify information rather than starting with eye-catching features. Using 6 fictional tasks from Team Haneul, this guide describes expected benefits qualitatively, checks review burden and sensitive-information risk, and then narrows down the first use case. AI organizes the candidates, but the team makes the final choice.
When creating AI meeting notes, instead of polishing only one person's notes, practice combining records from multiple attendees and organizing decisions, action items, TBD items, and differences between records together with source tags. Using fictional Team Haneul meeting notes from 2026-10-20, this guide shows how to create a draft for team sharing without forcing different wording into a single version.
Practice using AI to collect weekly updates in different formats from each team member and reorganize them into completed work, work in progress, delays, dependencies, help needed, and items needing confirmation. Using Team Haneul reports from the same period, this guide creates an AI weekly report example that preserves both reference times and sources when numbers differ instead of deleting one value.
This guide explains how to reorganize scattered notes into background, current status, material locations, next actions, cautions, and TBD items so someone else can continue the work immediately when the owner is absent. Using a fictional case in which Seoyeon's promotion and registration work is handed over to Junho, it creates both an AI work handover document and questions the recipient should verify.
Practice turning a short work request from a team lead into a draft request the team can agree on again, separating confirmed requirements from missing conditions instead of letting AI fill in the gaps arbitrarily. Using Team Haneul’s request, 'Please prepare some workshop materials,' we leave completion criteria, included and excluded scope, and submission conditions as clarifying questions.
Learn how to turn team collaboration AI into a team asset that is reviewed and revised together rather than a set of individual prompts. We follow Team Haneul as it improves an AI meeting-notes prompt from v1.0 to v1.1 and checks it again with the same test input.
Learn how to check facts, omissions, sensitive information, owners, and approval status by role before sharing an AI weekly-report draft with the team. Separate the author, reviewer, and approver and record what evidence was checked so AI output is not mistaken for the team’s official conclusion.