Use the method the problem needs
Choose a framework that addresses the failure you need to fix.
Begin with the missing capability
If the model lacks facts, provide evidence. If the format is unclear, show an example or define a schema. If the work has dependent stages, decompose it. Verification is useful only when a check can meaningfully challenge the draft.
| Need | Method to consider |
|---|---|
| Relevant facts | Source grounding or retrieval-augmented generation |
| A consistent format | Few-shot examples and structured output |
| Dependent stages | Task decomposition or prompt chaining |
| Checkable factual claims | Chain of Verification |
| Several reasoning candidates | Self-consistency, with added sampling cost |
| Authorized external actions | A tool-using workflow with explicit permissions |
Choose a method for a supplier brief
Apply the parts that address the missing facts, format or checks in this brief.
For a supplier comparison, first collect the approved proposals. Use the same comparison table for each supplier, then identify missing values. Verify the final factual claims against the proposals. Do not generate multiple speculative rankings to compensate for missing prices. Ask for the missing commercial information before making a recommendation.
More steps can cost more without helping
Additional samples, tool calls and review passes can increase latency and cost. Test the chosen method on representative cases. Research results for a particular model and dataset do not guarantee the same improvement in your workflow.
Common questions
Should I always request a detailed chain of thought?
No. Ask for the explanation, assumptions, evidence or calculation needed to check the result. A long reasoning narrative is not itself proof of correctness.
Sources and review
Reviewed