Sample Prompts for Interview Summaries#
A number of you have asked for effective prompts to summarize interview notes and transcripts. Here are some templates you can start using immediately.
WHERE TO USE THESE PROMPTS#
You have two options in the TensorCase platform:
Option 1 – Report Page: Use these prompts directly in your Report page if you want everything in one place. Click on the AI button to pop out an Instruction box and paste the prompt there.
Option 2 – Separate Drafting Pages (Recommended): Keep your interview summaries separate from your report drafting. Here's how:
- Click "+ AI DRAFT" at the top right when you're in a case.
- Name the new page (e.g., "Complainant Interview Summary" or "Witness - John Smith")
- Paste your prompt and use the
@function to select your interview file
This approach lets you organize multiple interview summaries as separate pages, then pull the relevant portions into your report when you're ready.
COMPLAINANT INTERVIEW PROMPTS#
Version 1 – Comprehensive Analysis:
Analyze this complainant interview transcript and produce a detailed, objective summary organized by: (1) specific allegations with supporting facts and level of detail provided, (2) timeline of events with dates/times/locations where stated, (3) evidence identified (documents, witnesses, communications, physical evidence), (4) claimed impact (emotional, physical, professional, financial), (5) prior complaints, informal reports, or related incidents mentioned, (6) whether complainant reported to anyone else and their response, (7) remedies or outcomes sought, and (8) credibility factors including: specificity and consistency of recall, demeanor indicators mentioned in notes, any qualifiers or hedging language ('I think,' 'maybe,' 'I'm not sure'), inconsistencies with other statements or known facts, and potential bias or motive to fabricate or exaggerate. Identify both strengths and weaknesses in the account. Flag narrative gaps, areas where recall seems unusually strong or weak, and topics requiring follow-up investigation. Note what corroborating evidence should exist if the account is accurate.
Version 2 – Quick Reference:
Summarize this complainant interview in bullet format: What specifically are they alleging happened? When and where? Who else has knowledge? What evidence exists? What's their desired outcome? Note any credibility considerations—both strengths and weaknesses in their account.
RESPONDENT INTERVIEW PROMPTS#
Version 1 – Comprehensive Analysis:
Analyze this respondent interview transcript and produce a detailed, objective summary organized by: (1) their account of events for each specific allegation (organize by allegation, not chronology), (2) alternative explanations, context, or defenses offered, (3) what they acknowledge versus what they dispute, (4) their response to specific evidence (documents, witness statements, communications), (5) witnesses or evidence they cite to support their version, (6) their explanation for why the complaint was made, and (7) credibility factors including: specificity and consistency of recall, qualifiers or hedging language used, consistency with other statements or known facts, responsiveness to questions, and areas where recall seems unusually strong or weak. Identify both strengths and weaknesses in their account. Note any topics they avoided addressing or declined to answer. Identify statements that can be verified or refuted through other evidence.
Version 2 – Quick Reference:
Summarize respondent's account: What's their version of events? What do they acknowledge versus dispute? What evidence or witnesses support their account? Note any credibility considerations, both strengths and weaknesses.
WITNESS INTERVIEW PROMPTS#
Version 1 – Comprehensive Analysis:
Analyze this witness interview and extract only information relevant to [INSERT SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS]. Structure as follows: (1) Direct observations—what they personally saw, heard, or experienced, with as much detail as provided (dates, times, locations, exact statements heard, who else was present), (2) Hearsay—what they were told, by whom, when, and under what circumstances (assess whether hearsay source should be interviewed), (3) Documentary evidence they've seen or have access to, (4) Workplace context or pattern evidence (culture, prior incidents, relevant policies or practices), (5) Character or credibility evidence about parties, and (6) Opinions or speculation (note but discount). For each substantive point, indicate whether it corroborates complainant, corroborates respondent, contradicts either party, or provides new information. Assess witness credibility: relationship to parties, potential bias, consistency, level of detail in recall, qualifiers used, and willingness to commit to facts. Flag any indication the witness has been coached or influenced. Identify additional investigation leads mentioned.
Version 2 – Quick Reference:
What did this witness directly observe that's relevant to [ALLEGATIONS]? What's hearsay? Does their account support the complainant, respondent, or neither? Any bias indicators? What should we follow up on? Are they a strong witness or a weak one?
CUSTOMIZE FOR YOUR CASE#
These are templates—make them specific to get better results. The more detail you provide, the more focused and useful the summary will be.
Add case-specific information like:
- Names: "Focus on any statements about interactions between
[Complainant Name]and[Respondent Name]." - Specific allegations: "The allegations are: (1)
[Respondent]made sexually explicit comments to[Complainant]during the June 15 team meeting, (2)[Respondent]touched[Complainant's]shoulder inappropriately on June 22, and (3)[Respondent]excluded[Complainant]from the[Project Name]after she rejected his advances." - Key dates/locations: "Pay particular attention to events occurring between June 1-30, 2024, and any mentions of the 5th floor conference room."
- Specific documents or communications: "Note any references to the email chain about budget approvals or the Teams messages from late June."
Example of a customized prompt:
"This is a sexual harassment and retaliation investigation involving Sarah Chen (Complainant) and Michael Rodriguez (Respondent). The allegations are: (1) Rodriguez made unwelcome sexual comments to Chen during team meetings on June 15 and June 22, 2024, (2) Rodriguez sent inappropriate text messages to Chen on June 25, and (3) Rodriguez removed Chen from the Anderson project on July 1 in retaliation for her rejecting his advances. Analyze this witness interview with Marcus Lee and extract: what he personally observed about interactions between Chen and Rodriguez, any statements about the June team meetings or the Anderson project staffing decision, whether he saw the text messages or heard about them, his knowledge of any complaints Chen made, and his assessment of the workplace dynamic on their team. Distinguish between what Lee directly observed versus what others told him."