Structured pre-generation elicitation versus single-shot prompting in AI-assisted enterprise decision-making: a randomised online experiment

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools has created new literacy demands for designers who must verbalize tacit knowledge through natural language prompts. Yet the micro-level cognitive processes by which designers externalize implicit intentions during iterative AI dialogue remain underexplored. This exploratory qualitative study examined five expert designers (11-20 years UI/UX experience, M = 15.4 years) using think-aloud protocols. We identified "Strategic Oscillation" -- experts' intentional return to vague language (Vibe) after progressing toward operational specifications (Code), leveraging AI's probabilistic nature for creative exploration. We observed shifts from "instruction" to "consultation" mode, deep reflection triggered by semantic collisions, and one participant's disengagement revealing conceptual alignment as a tentative boundary condition. We propose the ECRT cycle (Expectation-Collision-Reflection-Transformation) operationalizing the SECI model's "externalization" phase for human-AI collaboration. These findings yield three design patterns for metacognitive support and position AI as a "probabilistic mirror" catalyzing tacit knowledge externalization.

Requirements elicitation interviews require interviewers to balance topic coverage, active listening, and adaptive probing while responding to stakeholders in real time. Although prior work has explored AI support for isolated interviewing tasks, such as script generation and follow-up question generation, little is known about how integrated support affects the interview and what requirements artifacts emerge. Furthermore, script management---which helps the interviewer track topic coverage in real time and decide when to probe further---remains underexplored. This paper presents an AI-assisted elicitation workflow that combines theory-guided script generation grounded in business goals with live support for topic coverage tracking and on-demand follow-up question generation. We evaluate the workflow in a between-subjects quasi-experimental study comparing a no-training, AI-assisted condition with a training, AI-unassisted condition. Based on a rubric derived from elicitation best practices, the AI-generated scripts score higher than training-only scripts (92.8 vs. 74.8 out of 100). AI-assisted interviews cover fewer topics (9.6 vs. 14.5), cover more scripted questions (86% vs. 69%), ask more follow-ups per topic (3.43 vs. 1.15), and produce more refined goal models (lowest-level goal fraction 0.653 vs. 0.598). Participants find script management useful, rating topic tracking as the most useful workflow feature (86% agreement). Collectively, these results show that the AI-assisted condition is associated with a different interview trajectory and different elicited requirements than a training-only condition, positioning AI-assisted workflows as elicitation scaffolds for future studies.