Predict executive questions for presentations
A battle-tested prompt that acts as a skeptical executive reviewer, identifying the toughest questions your audience will ask before you present.
🤖 Works with: Any
The Prompt
Copy and paste — replace anything in [brackets].
You are a skeptical senior executive reviewing my analysis before I present it. Here is what I am presenting: {paste your key points / summary / deck outline} Audience: {who is in the room and what they care about} Do this: List the 5 questions this audience is most likely to ask, hardest first. For each, tell me whether my current material answers it or not. Flag the single weakest claim I am making and how someone would attack it. Give me one number or piece of context I should have ready that I probably left out. Be blunt. Assume they are looking for the hole, not the highlight.What it’s good for
Use this before stakeholder reviews to anticipate challenging questions, identify weaknesses in your presentation, and prepare robust answers.
How to use it
- Paste your key points, summary, or deck outline into the first placeholder.
- Define your audience (e.g., 'VP of Finance focused on ROI, skeptical of new initiatives').
- Run the prompt and use the output to fortify your presentation and prepare responses.
Does it actually hold up?
This prompt excels because it forces a critical, adversarial perspective that's hard to self-generate, especially for junior analysts. By specifying 'hardest first' and 'be blunt,' it cuts through self-congratulatory tendencies and simulates the pressure of an executive review. However, its effectiveness hinges entirely on the quality of input—vague key points like 'improved metrics' will yield generic questions about methodology or significance, missing nuanced, domain-specific traps. For example, in a fintech context, it might flag a rounded compliance caveat but could overlook a subtle regulatory assumption if not detailed in the input. It's invaluable for presenters who tend to over-polish narratives at the expense of rigor, but less useful for highly technical deep-dives where the 'holes' are in data lineage or model assumptions not captured in a summary. Use this as a stress-test for story flow, not a substitute for peer review on technical depth.
The tweak that makes it better
Add a third placeholder: 'Context: {industry, recent company events, or known biases of the audience}.' This directs the AI to tailor questions to specific pressures, like a recent product failure or a shift in strategic focus. For instance, if your company just missed earnings, the prompt will prioritize questions about cost implications rather than generic growth queries, making the simulation more realistic and actionable.
Curated from the community via Reddit.
