The mistake that is the same every time
The usual run looks like this: you have the article, from it comes a post, from the post a newsletter item, from the newsletter item a video script. Each step is a little shorter and a little more general than the last — and by the fourth version you are no longer writing about the article but about the summary of a summary of it.
This is not a style problem but information loss, and it is measurable. In summarisation the dominant failure type is omission: on legal texts the best models returned 67 to 71 percent of the arguments. Suffer that loss four times in a row and less than half of it survives. On top comes the flattening: texts produced with machine assistance are measurably more similar to each other than human originals, and every further round strengthens that. So there is one rule: every format is made from the source, never from another format.
The source document that is never published
The whole workflow rests on having one document everything else derives from — and it is not the published article. The published article is itself a format: it has an opening, transitions and a register that in every other format is just noise.
The source document has four parts and runs to about a page. The claims: three to five sentences, each of which stands on its own. The evidence: beside every claim a number, case or quote, with its source. The quotable lines: two or three sentences exactly as you would say them. The limits: what this does not apply to, who it is not for. That fourth part is the one everybody skips, and the reason short formats end up overpromising.
The ten formats and what each one needs
You will not need all ten. The list is complete so you can see what each one demands — because a format is not a length but a requirement. An eleventh does not belong here: a version in another language is not a format but localization, and it has a workflow of its own.
- Newsletter item. One claim, one piece of evidence, one link. A newsletter is not a shortened article but a reason to read the article. There is a separate recipe for the weekly run: a newsletter workflow, with a forty-minute budget.
- Short social post. A single claim, and without a number it is not interesting. Put the limit in here too, or the comments will be about it.
- Longer professional post. Two claims and the tension between them. A good professional post does not summarise; it develops one thing the article only touches.
- Image carousel. One sentence per slide, at most twelve words. This format punishes loose phrasing hardest, because there is nowhere to hide.
- Short video script. The first six seconds are the entire content: if the viewer has to wait for the claim, they scroll on. The evidence goes in the middle, the link at the end.
- FAQ block. The article's claims become questions, and the answer is three sentences. This is the format that search engines and AI answer engines quote most readily — the details are in writing for humans and AI.
- Internal briefing. The same material, plus the part you would not write publicly: what the risk is, what we do not know, what we have no answer to.
- Sales email. One claim, and immediately after it what that means for the recipient. Evidence here does not persuade, it authenticates — one piece is enough.
- Talk outline. One claim and one example per section. Essentially the same outline that the outline-first workflow describes, cut for speech.
- Landing page section. The claim as a claim, not as a question. The limit is mandatory here, because this is the surface people will quote back at you later.
The order
Five steps, and the order saves half the work.
- Write the source document before you publish anything. Even if the article is already finished — twenty minutes to copy the claims and the evidence out of it.
- Choose the formats before you write. Three well-made formats are worth more than ten half-made ones. Choose by where your readers actually are, not by where it seems proper to be present.
- Every format in its own request, from the source document. One request, one format, the source document in the input. Ask for ten in one request and all ten will be variations on the same text.
- Put the style sheet into every request. The length changes per format, the voice does not. Fixing your own voice covers this, and it matters especially in repurposing, because here the same mistake runs ten times.
- Check the numbers once, in the source document. Get them right there and they are right in ten places. Get them wrong there and you have ten places to fix.
The prompt that narrows to one format
This template is for step three. Swap the format block; leave the source document unchanged.
Produce ONE piece of [format] material FROM THE SOURCE DOCUMENT.
Work only from what is in the source document.
=== SOURCE DOCUMENT ===
Claims: [3-5 sentences]
Evidence: [number / case / quote, with source]
Quotable lines: [2-3 sentences]
Limits: [what it does not apply to, who it is not for]
=== REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORMAT ===
Length: [exact number]
Must contain: [one claim + one piece of evidence + the limit]
Must not contain: [an intro, a summarising close, a call to action]
=== STYLE ===
[your style sheet]
Rules:
- do not introduce a claim that is not in the source document
- carry the numbers over verbatim, do not round
- if the format will not fit, drop one claim rather than shortening all of them
What not to do
Four habits that reliably spoil the result.
- Do not make a format from a format. This is the main rule of the whole post, and the most frequently broken.
- Do not ask for ten versions at once. Within one request the model will vary the same sentence, because they are produced in each other's context.
- Do not drop the limit from the short formats. The first casualty of shortening is always the "except when" part, and that is precisely what people argue about under short formats.
- Do not use the same opening sentence in all of them. The same first sentence across ten surfaces is not a consistent brand voice, it is visible machine copying.
How long it takes and when it is not worth it
The source document is twenty minutes. Per format, the request plus the rewrite is five to ten minutes. So four formats come to about an hour and ten to about two — but only the first time, because the format blocks are reusable afterwards.
When it is not worth it: when the content cannot carry ten formats. An article with one claim and one piece of evidence fills three formats, and the remaining seven are the same thing repeated in different packaging. Your audience notices this sooner than you expect, and the cost is not time but credibility. The question is not how many formats you have tools for, but how many claims you have.
What to take away
One rule carries the whole thing: every format is made from the source document, never from another format. Write a one-page, non-public document with claims, evidence, quotable lines and limits; choose three or four formats where your readers actually are; and request each format separately with its own requirement list. Check the numbers once, in the source — from then on they are right in ten places.