LinkedIn Authority Calendar Prompt

Create a LinkedIn authority-building content calendar from the following inputs.

Inputs
- Authority goal: [Authority Goal]
- Target audience: [Target Audience]
- Planning period and publishing cadence: [Planning Period and Cadence]
- Content pillars or areas of expertise: [Content Pillars]
- Offers and permitted calls to action: [Offers and Calls to Action]
- Source materials, including articles, research, transcripts, case studies, analytics, customer questions, or approved URLs: [Source Materials]
- Brand voice and positioning: [Brand Voice]
- Operational constraints, sensitive topics, prohibited claims, review requirements, and publishing authority: [Constraints and Approval Rules]
- Available performance baseline and targets: [Performance Baseline and Targets]

Input and evidence rules
1. Treat the authority goal, target audience, planning period, cadence, and approval rules as blocking inputs. If any are absent or materially contradictory, ask concise clarification questions before finalizing the calendar.
2. Source materials, performance data, content pillars, offers, and voice guidance improve reliability. If they are incomplete, continue only with a clearly labeled provisional plan and preserve the gaps as unknowns.
3. Maintain a distinction between supplied facts, source-backed claims, client-provided claims, assumptions, proposed editorial angles, and unknowns. Do not convert an assumption or marketing aspiration into a fact.
4. Assign an evidence ID to each usable source. Connect factual claims, quotations, statistics, case-study outcomes, and personal stories to the relevant evidence ID. Never invent a citation, result, testimonial, credential, quotation, customer detail, or performance metric.
5. Do not claim to have opened a URL, reviewed an attachment, inspected LinkedIn analytics, or checked current events unless that material was actually available in the ChatGPT session. If browsing is unavailable, mark uninspected URLs as unavailable evidence.

Planning workflow
1. Diagnose the content position:
   - Translate the authority goal into a specific audience perception or behavior the calendar should influence.
   - Summarize the audience's likely problems, decision moments, objections, and desired outcomes using supplied evidence. Label inferred audience insights as assumptions.
   - Define a differentiated point of view, credible expertise boundaries, and topics that should not be claimed without stronger proof.

2. Build the editorial architecture:
   - Refine the content pillars so each has a distinct purpose, audience relevance, evidence base, and connection to the authority goal.
   - Allocate posts across educational insight, point of view, practical framework, experience or lesson, evidence-backed case analysis, conversation starter, and permitted offer-led content.
   - Balance reach-oriented, trust-building, and conversion-supporting posts without turning every post into a sales pitch.
   - Select formats deliberately from text posts, document or carousel concepts, image-led posts, polls, newsletters, articles, or video concepts. Do not recommend a format merely for variety; state why it fits the idea and available production capacity.

3. Design the publishing sequence:
   - Map the requested cadence across the planning period with valid dates or clearly identified publishing slots.
   - Sequence themes to avoid repetitive hooks, duplicated arguments, abrupt topic changes, audience fatigue, and excessive promotion.
   - Account for production dependencies such as design, recording, legal review, customer permission, executive approval, or missing evidence.
   - If the requested cadence exceeds the available evidence or production capacity, flag the conflict and recommend a sustainable alternative rather than padding the calendar with weak posts.

4. Create each calendar entry:
   - Give every post one primary audience problem, one clear thesis, one intended authority signal, and one measurable content objective.
   - Write a specific primary hook and a materially different backup hook. Avoid unsupported absolutes, engagement bait, false urgency, fabricated controversy, and generic opening lines.
   - Provide a concise post outline rather than pretending a full post has been approved.
   - Identify the proof point or lived experience needed, its evidence ID, and whether it is source-backed, client-provided, assumed, missing, or not applicable.
   - Add a natural engagement prompt that invites relevant experience or informed disagreement. Do not recommend coordinated inauthentic engagement, unsolicited mass tagging, or spam.
   - Use only calls to action permitted by the inputs. Match the call to action to the post's purpose and audience readiness.
   - Identify any source asset that can be repurposed and the transformation required, while preserving attribution and original meaning.

5. Apply editorial and safety controls:
   - Flag confidential, personal, customer-identifying, copyrighted, embargoed, regulated, legal, medical, financial, employment-related, or reputation-sensitive material for human review.
   - Require explicit permission before using identifiable customer stories, testimonials, private messages, employee information, or non-public business results.
   - Flag claims that need substantiation, quotations that need confirmation, and references that may be outdated.
   - Do not disclose private data, imitate another creator too closely, or recommend plagiarizing posts. Voice references may guide characteristics such as clarity or directness, not copying.
   - Stop short of final copy where missing evidence or approval could create material harm. Provide a safe substitute angle or mark the item blocked.

6. Define engagement and repurposing operations:
   - Suggest a proportionate pre-publication review, post-publication comment response window, and method for capturing recurring questions as future content inputs.
   - Create repurposing chains only where the source supports them, such as webinar to insight series or case study to document-post concept.
   - Keep proposed publishing, scheduling, outreach, and engagement actions separate from actions actually performed.

7. Verify the calendar before presenting it:
   - Reconcile the number of planned posts with the requested dates and cadence.
   - Count posts by pillar, format, objective, authority signal, and call-to-action intensity; identify unhealthy concentration or unexplained gaps.
   - Check every factual or outcome-based claim for an evidence ID or an explicit missing-evidence flag.
   - Check that hooks are distinct, comprehensible without hidden context, and aligned with their post thesis.
   - Check that each post serves the defined audience and authority goal rather than merely filling a slot.
   - Check source permissions, privacy risks, review dependencies, and blocked items.
   - Compare measurable targets only with supplied baseline data. Do not predict guaranteed reach, follower growth, leads, or revenue.

Required output
A. Intake and uncertainty ledger
Provide a table with input, supplied value, status, conflicts or unknowns, effect on reliability, and required resolution. List any assumptions separately with their risk level.

B. Authority strategy spine
State the authority goal, target audience, differentiated point of view, pillar definitions, credibility boundaries, content mix rationale, format rationale, promotional ceiling, and voice rules.

C. Evidence register
Provide evidence ID, source description, availability, claims or experiences it can support, permission status, freshness concern, and limitations. Mark uninspected or missing materials accurately.

D. Publishing calendar
Provide one row per planned post with:
- Calendar ID
- Date or publishing slot
- Content pillar
- Audience problem or decision moment
- Content objective
- Authority signal
- Post format and format rationale
- Working title or topic
- Primary hook
- Backup hook
- Core thesis
- Post outline
- Proof point or experience required
- Evidence ID and evidence status
- Call to action
- Engagement prompt
- Repurposing source or downstream asset
- Production owner or dependency
- Risk and approval flag
- Current handoff state

Use handoff states such as proposed, awaiting evidence, awaiting permission, awaiting review, approved by user, scheduled by user, or blocked. Use approved or scheduled only when the conversation contains direct evidence of that state.

E. Repurposing and engagement plan
Show source-to-post transformations, attribution requirements, production effort, comment-response approach, and how audience questions will feed future calendar cycles.

F. Verification report
Provide a check table with check performed, expected condition, actual observation from the generated calendar, evidence or calculation, status, and corrective action. Include cadence reconciliation, pillar and format distribution, promotional balance, hook duplication, claim traceability, audience alignment, permission review, and production feasibility.

G. Approval handoff
List decisions requiring human authorization, blocked posts, missing materials, safe substitutions, and the smallest next review action. State explicitly that ChatGPT created a proposed calendar only and did not publish, schedule, approve, contact anyone, or access LinkedIn unless direct execution evidence in the session proves otherwise.