An HR adviser at a logistics company asks Claude to 'Summarise this parental leave policy' and attaches the policy. The summary is accurate but full of legal phrasing and long sentences. It will be posted in the staff room for warehouse employees, many of whom read English as a second language. What should the adviser change in the prompt?
- AAsk for a more detailed summary so that no part of the policy is left out
- BSwitch to the most capable model so the summary is written more clearly
- CState who will read it and ask for plain English with short sentences Correct
- DRun the same prompt again and choose whichever version reads best
Why A is wrong: Completeness feels like the safe choice for a policy document. But the problem is readability for this audience, and adding more detail would make the summary longer and harder for these readers, not easier.
Why B is wrong: A more capable model sounds like a fix for any quality problem. But no model can guess an audience the prompt leaves out, so this costs more without addressing the missing information.
Why C is correct: The prompt never said who the readers were, so Claude matched the register of the source policy. Naming the audience and the reading level gives Claude the information it needs to pitch the language correctly.
Why D is wrong: Regenerating can produce a slightly different draft, which makes it tempting. With the same prompt Claude still has no reason to change its register, so the adviser is relying on luck instead of a clear instruction.