Give feedback that improves the next result

Review the result against the job

A helpful review is more precise than “great” or “try harder.” Compare the output with the outcome, format, sources, and boundaries you agreed on. Was it complete? Was it grounded in the supplied information? Did it make uncertainty visible? Did it stop at the right point?

Check substance before polish. A beautifully formatted list is still a problem if it assigns a deadline that no source supports.

Correct one thing with an example

Instead of “this summary is too vague,” try:

Keep the opening to two sentences. For each unresolved item, include the source, the last known owner, and the next decision. If the owner is missing, say so. Do not infer one from who attended the meeting.

This gives the helper a rule, an output shape, and a boundary. If the problem is factual, identify the reliable source and ask for the affected conclusions to be revisited.

Avoid changing five unrelated instructions after a single run. You will have a harder time seeing which change made a difference.

Keep your own brief current

Treat your exported brief as an editable working document. After a useful correction, revise the relevant section. Keep a small version note such as “Changed the review window from all open items to the past two weeks.”

On this site, “training your Dot” means providing instructions, examples, and feedback. The builder composes a document from your answers; it does not train or fine-tune a model.

Product memory is a separate topic. OpenAI says turning off ChatGPT Memory stops sharing with a Dot but does not delete information it already received. Official privacy FAQ. Do not treat a corrected brief as proof that retained information has been erased.

Make your review rhythm realistic

For a first test, inspect every result. Once the task is familiar, decide what you will check on each run and when you will revisit the whole arrangement. Review again when sources, responsibilities, or permissions change.

Ask for a short completion note: what was reviewed, what was produced, what is uncertain, and what needs you. Decide which issues deserve an interruption and which can wait for the next check-in.

Try this now

Choose one output and write:

• One thing that meets the standard.
• One thing that needs to change.
• One example showing the change.
• One small test that would show whether it improved.

Repeat the same bounded task with the revised instruction and compare the results.

Common mistakes

Correcting only tone. Check the evidence and decisions as carefully as the wording.

Giving contradictory preferences. “Include every detail” and “keep it very short” need a priority rule. Ask for a short summary with a separate detail section.

Assuming improvement is permanent. Keep checking. New information can expose a new misunderstanding.

Put the five dots together

You now have context, sources, a responsibility, boundaries, and a feedback loop. Build your Dot Brief, or begin with the Small-Business Follow-Up recipe.