--- language: en title: "Prompt for writing a case study" description: "Reconstruct an authorized real-world experience with context, actions, comparable results, and limitations, without treating association as causation." canonical: "https://tropk.ai/en/resources/prompts/prompt-for-writing-a-case-study" last_modified: "2026-10-12T16:14:32.053Z" --- # Prompt for writing a case study Reviewed on 2026-10-06. ## Prompt to adapt and use Document a real-world experience and explain which lessons may be considered in another context. ### Prepare before you begin COMPANY AND BUSINESS company: {company} domain: {domain} confirmed_offering: {products_services_capabilities_limits_and_sources} business_context: {market_region_proven_differentiators_and_constraints} AUDIENCE AND OBJECTIVE audience: {profile_task_initial_knowledge_and_constraints} main_question: {reader_question} reader_outcome: {what_the_person_should_be_able_to_decide_or_do} editorial_objective: {objective} intent_and_stage: {search_intent_and_decision_stage} VOICE AND EDITORIAL CONTEXT voice: {tone_vocabulary_style_examples_and_terms_to_avoid} topic_and_entities: {topic_primary_keyword_terms_and_entities} inventory: {existing_pages_and_decision_to_create_update_or_consolidate} contribution: {authorized_example_matrix_method_or_proprietary_data} cta: {relevant_next_action_and_confirmed_destination_or_not_applicable} EVIDENCE AND ACCESS sources: {id_title_url_author_publication_date_access_date_and_relevant_excerpts} authorized_data: {data_definitions_period_method_and_permissions_or_not_available} incoming_internal_links: {published_url_topic_and_link_purpose} research_access: {tools_actually_enabled_and_authorized_access_or_no_browsing} restrictions: {confidentiality_rights_deadlines_market_and_scope} real_case: {authorized_organization_or_approved_anonymous_description} permissions: {what_may_be_published_and_proof_of_authorization} problem_and_hypothesis: {initial_problem_objective_and_hypothesis} timeline: {date_action_owner_and_record} before_after: {metric_definition_unit_baseline_window_source_and_conditions} other_changes: {concurrent_events_and_possible_confounders} statements: {exact_testimonials_source_and_approval_or_no_testimonials} limitations: {what_the_case_does_not_allow_you_to_conclude} ### Delivery format A. Case study in Markdown: context, problem, hypothesis, actions, results, limitations, and lessons. B. Timeline and before-and-after evidence table. C. Record of permissions and outstanding human validations; if no real case is provided, only a collection brief. ### Review criteria • The experience took place, and the facts have verifiable records. • Names, data, images, and statements comply with publication permissions. • Before-and-after comparisons preserve the metric, baseline, unit, period, and conditions. • Observed results, interpretation, and causality are distinguished. • Lessons identify conditions for application without promising the same result will be reproduced. ### Modelo Act as a research and writing assistant for the company provided. Write in Brazilian Portuguese, with clarity and the brand’s voice, to serve the audience’s task. Produce a draft for human review. Use the full context below, not just the topic. MODULE 1 — CONTEXT TO COMPLETE COMPANY AND BUSINESS company: {company} domain: {domain} confirmed_offering: {products_services_capabilities_limits_and_sources} business_context: {market_region_proven_differentiators_and_constraints} AUDIENCE AND OBJECTIVE audience: {profile_task_initial_knowledge_and_constraints} main_question: {reader_question} reader_outcome: {what_the_person_should_be_able_to_decide_or_do} editorial_objective: {objective} intent_and_stage: {search_intent_and_decision_stage} VOICE AND EDITORIAL CONTEXT voice: {tone_vocabulary_style_examples_and_terms_to_avoid} topic_and_entities: {topic_primary_keyword_terms_and_entities} inventory: {existing_pages_and_decision_to_create_update_or_consolidate} contribution: {authorized_example_matrix_method_or_proprietary_data} cta: {relevant_next_action_and_confirmed_destination_or_not_applicable} EVIDENCE AND ACCESS sources: {id_title_url_author_publication_date_access_date_and_relevant_excerpts} authorized_data: {data_definitions_period_method_and_permissions_or_not_available} incoming_internal_links: {published_url_topic_and_link_purpose} research_access: {tools_actually_enabled_and_authorized_access_or_no_browsing} restrictions: {confidentiality_rights_deadlines_market_and_scope} MODULE 2 — FORMAT INPUTS Format: case study Objective: Document a real-world experience and explain which lessons may be considered in another context. real_case: {authorized_organization_or_approved_anonymous_description} permissions: {what_may_be_published_and_proof_of_authorization} problem_and_hypothesis: {initial_problem_objective_and_hypothesis} timeline: {date_action_owner_and_record} before_after: {metric_definition_unit_baseline_window_source_and_conditions} other_changes: {concurrent_events_and_possible_confounders} statements: {exact_testimonials_source_and_approval_or_no_testimonials} limitations: {what_the_case_does_not_allow_you_to_conclude} MODULE 3 — EVIDENCE AND LIMITATIONS Read the supplied texts. If authorized research is enabled, consult relevant primary sources and record the pages actually read. Without browsing, use the attachments and return a list of outstanding checks; do not say you opened URLs. A competitor’s page can guide research, but it does not substantiate all its claims. Do not invent features, prices, data, clients, experiences, tests, credentials, testimonials, quotes, or links. Distinguish documented facts, observations, interpretations, and hypothetical examples. Missing information is neither zero nor proof that a feature does not exist. Preserve date, version, region, plan, unit, denominator, and material conditions. Derived numbers require calculations verified with a real tool or a validated result provided in the inputs. Otherwise, mark verification as pending; do not claim to have recalculated. Do not expose private data. Use names, images, and statements only with authorization. Do not copy the wording or the entire sequence of a reference. Preserve human authorship and indicate which validations require the subject owner. MODULE 4 — FORMAT PRODUCTION 1. Check that the case is real, documented, and authorized. Without this, provide a collection brief, not a fictional case study. 2. Reconstruct the context, hypothesis, actions, and chronology from the records. 3. Compare before and after only when conditions are compatible; explain differences and gaps. 4. Write up observed results, concurrent factors, limitations, and transferable lessons. Do not claim causality without a sufficient method. 5. Preserve exact approved statements and identify which facts and permissions require validation by the owner. MODULE 5 — SEO, AEO, AND GEO Use an H1 that aligns with the question and body; organize H2/H3 headings around reader decisions. Start sections with direct answers where helpful. Each passage must retain enough entity, context, and conditions to be understood on its own. Use terms naturally, without fixed keyword density or artificial repetition. Cite the specific source near the fact it supports; preserve the supplied URL. Suggest internal links only to confirmed, useful destinations. Do not force an FAQ, word count, or special schema onto every format. Do not promise rankings or citations. Do not add authorship, review, publication date, testing, or updates that did not happen. The CTA must match the stated offering and action, without an unrelated sales pitch. MODULE 6 — OUTPUT AND REVIEW A. Case study in Markdown: context, problem, hypothesis, actions, results, limitations, and lessons. B. Timeline and before-and-after evidence table. C. Record of permissions and outstanding human validations; if no real case is provided, only a collection brief. Also provide: proposed H1, SEO title, description, and slug; claim log with source, section, and limitation; links used; outstanding items with impact and next check. Keep this material separate from the publishable body. Do not publish or claim the draft is approved. Review against the criteria below and mark each as met, needs correction, or not applicable, with a reason: 1. The experience took place, and the facts have verifiable records. 2. Names, data, images, and statements comply with publication permissions. 3. Before-and-after comparisons preserve the metric, baseline, unit, period, and conditions. 4. Observed results, interpretation, and causality are distinguished. 5. Lessons identify conditions for application without promising the same result will be reproduced. If essential proof for the central claim is missing, return only the safe portion and state which input prevents a conclusion. Do not fill the gap with a likely conclusion. ## When to use this prompt Use a case study when there is a real-world experience that can be documented and published with authorization. Readers need to understand the problem, context, actions, and what was observed afterward. The value is not just in the final number: it is in the process that lets readers assess what was learned. The story should preserve the decisions, conditions, and limitations that explain why the experience unfolded as it did. A hypothetical example can teach, but it is not a case that actually happened. If data, records, or permission are not yet available, use the [prompt](/en/resources/glossary/prompt) to create a collection brief. Do not turn a likely scenario into an anonymous client story or attribute work that never happened to the team. Anonymizing the name does not automatically resolve confidentiality concerns: the industry, organization size, time period, and operational details may identify the organization. [SEO](/en/resources/glossary/seo) organizes the page for people searching; [AEO](/en/resources/glossary/aeo) focuses on clear answers; [GEO](/en/resources/glossary/geo) addresses discovery through generative answers. In this resource, all three are treated as writing, research, and review practices: answer the task, name entities, preserve context, and make evidence verifiable. A prompt helps prepare a draft. It does not verify facts or guarantee rankings, recommendations, or citations by AI. ## Prepare the inputs before writing Organize the objective, initial problem, hypothesis, timeline, actions, owners, and records. For results, gather the metric definition, source, unit, baseline, observation window, and method. A before-and-after comparison requires compatible conditions. Record simultaneous changes, such as a campaign, seasonality, an offer change, or a measurement change, that may affect interpretation. Missing information should remain visible as a gap. Prepare permissions for using names, brands, images, data, and testimonials. A statement must retain its original meaning and be approved for publication; the model must not create a more persuasive quote and present it as a real one. Separate private materials from publishable evidence. If authorization is partial, describe the limitation explicitly so the draft does not expand the consent that was given. ## How to produce and review the content The prompt reconstructs the sequence before writing the narrative. Present the context and starting point, explain the hypothesis and actions, show the results with their basis, and discuss limitations. Avoid hiding a change in the time period behind an appealing percentage. When the study design cannot support causality, describe the result observed during the period and the plausible contribution as a qualified interpretation. Review how the learning may transfer. An experience can suggest questions, practices, or conditions for another project; it does not promise that the same action will produce the same result. Check every number, testimonial, and claim about work performed against the corresponding record. The case owner must validate the facts and permissions before publication. Editorial review does not replace approval of the real-world content. ## Example of completed inputs Hypothetical preparation example: a team gathers records from an editorial review, comparable periods, and authorizations. The table separates the problem, action, observed result, and other changes during the period. This example teaches how to organize inputs; it does not describe a client served or a gain measured by Tropk. Without real evidence, the appropriate output is a collection brief, with results left unfilled. ## How to use the full prompt Copy the full prompt and replace the fields in braces before sending it. Attach the source content as well as the URLs: a model without browsing cannot verify a link on its own. Use “not available” when data is missing and explain why. Generate a first version, check the outstanding items, and correct the inputs before requesting a review. Keep public-facing text separate from research notes. ## Check the result - The experience took place, and the facts have verifiable records. - Names, data, images, and statements comply with publication permissions. - Before-and-after comparisons preserve the metric, baseline, unit, period, and conditions. - Observed results, interpretation, and causality are distinguished. - Lessons identify conditions for application without promising the same result will be reproduced. ## Sources and references - [Create helpful, reliable, people-first content]() — Google Search Central - [AI features and your website]() — Google Search Central - [Guidance on content created with generative AI]() — Google Search Central ## Continue a leitura - [Prompt for writing an informational article]() - [Prompt for writing a guide or pillar page]() - [Prompt for writing a research study or benchmark]() - [AI discovery strategy]() - [Resources]() ## About the author [Luiz Gardelin]() Luiz Gardelin is the founder of Tropk.ai and works in GEO/AEO, product vision, strategy, and growth, helping brands understand and improve their presence in AI responses. --- [All pages in Markdown]()