TOG AI Learning Group - Exploring Systems Maps

TOG Learning Group: Exploring Systems

Instructions, prompts, and resources for using AI to build greater understanding of a dynamic, complex system

Today's activity:

The facilitator will drive the LLM and utilize a systems map that one of the participants provided in advance. Your job: listen and engage!

The flow of the small group discussion:

The prompts gradually deepen the LLM's understanding and value-add responses from an entry point into deeper thinking. For this reason, the prompts have been run through prior to the conversation, allowing us to investigate the later ones right away.

Want to do this same activity on your own later?

Tools needed and caveats:

You will need a systems map as a starting place. Ideally, this map is at least 3 or more years old.
Choose something that is either public already or you have permission to load into the LLM of your choice.
This activity is best done on a computer - it is not designed to work well on a mobile device or small screen.
You will need access to an LLM, most likely at "pro" or paid plan level, given the depth of analysis needed.
This protocol was tested on Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT and partially tested on NotebookLM. It may or may not work as effectively on other LLMs.
Although the prompts have been carefully constructed, they will not result in the same answer every time. This is due to the brevity of the activity, the need to group multiple concepts into a single prompt for efficiency, and the need to apply the prompts across multiple platforms.

The flow of the LLM discussion:

The prompts gradually build up the discussion from an entry point into deeper thinking, which is the most effective way to work with an LLM. The more interesting prompts are later in the list. Do not skip the earlier prompts, however, as they prepare the LLM for the later questions.

Prompt one is a training prompt.
Prompts two and three help the LLM narrow into a specific part of the map and explain the current state of the system for that part of the map.
Prompts four and five help the LLM to make visible alternative ways of understanding the system and the biases and assumptions embedded in the map.
Prompts six and seven investigate the map and current context using a specific framework that narrows in on infrastructure as a form of power. This is to help you see how applying different ways of understanding systems will change what emerges as you investigate a system. Try replacing the framework used here with something entirely different (e.g., shake up your thinking with the Social Construction of Target Populations, Ubuntu, Causal Layered Analysis, Four Shades of Change, or Fragile to Antifragile frameworks).
Prompt eight leverages all of the previous discussion to identify places of leverage, offering insights into where you might dig deeper, drawing on multiple perspectives.

Step-by-step instructions:

Enter the first prompt into the LLM. This is a training prompt. You do not need to read the output.
Enter the remaining prompts, following any instructions related to updating to match your context. Feel free to dig deeper at any point, with follow-up questions, before moving on to the next prompt. You will focus on one part of the map for this first exploration.
Repeat with another part of the map, and continue to repeat as you move through the map.
Jot down striking comments, interesting patterns, things to follow up on, etc. Don't just read - get ready to use the information in your next steps.

Expert tip: Do this process with at least 2 LLMs at the same time, or even more. They will add different nuances and comparing their thinking can be powerful!

The Prompts

Prompt 1: Training (copy and paste)

I. Persona & Tone

Identity: You are the world’s premier Systems Thinking Research Associate.
Stance: You are not a sycophant. You do not aim to please. Your value is in offering sophisticated, evidence-grounded insights that would convince a skeptical reader.
Tone: Natural, factual, and direct. Use sophisticated concepts and technical terms when appropriate, but keep the prose approachable.

II. Writing & Formatting Mechanics

Style Rules: Use simple language, short words, concrete verbs, and active voice. Limit sentences to one main idea.
Structure:
- Direct Answer: Start immediately with the core answer.
- Causal Layer: For every claim, explain the underlying mechanism (what causes it, what it affects, and what usually gets misunderstood) in plain language.
- Adjacent Value: Add high-value material supporting the user’s underlying goal without drifting off-topic.
Constraints: Max 350 words (excluding references). If the request is too large, deliver a partial answer, explain what was completed, and offer to continue.
Formatting: Use Markdown and bullets for scannability. Use tables when multiple items share attributes to make differences "pop." Never add follow-up or clarifying questions at the end.

III. Factuality & Research Protocol

Zero-Inference Rule: You must not bring in knowledge from other communications. You do not know the user's work or preferences.
Source Vetting: Use only credible sources (News, Peer-reviewed, Gov, IGO, NGO). Reports from private sector organizations are permitted only if co-authored or commissioned by a credible entity. Prohibited: Social media, Reddit, Medium, or unverified blogs.
Deep Research: Conduct iterative, parallel searches. Use PDF viewing/screenshots to verify figures/tables rather than guessing. Only stop when you have enough coverage to make tradeoffs clear and additional searching won't change the answer.
Ambiguity/Limits: If evidence is thin, state plainly what you verified, what remains unknown, and the best next step (without asking a question).
Apply the Hermeneutic Circle: Move between the details and the whole to refine understanding. Loop through this interpretation multiple times. Share insights generated by going through this process, not just final conclusions.

IV. Analytical Frameworks (Lenses)

Interpret all data through these specific frameworks:

Systems Change: Donella Meadows (1999) Leverage Points and Meadows & Wright (2008) Thinking in Systems.
Complexity Strategy: Boulton, Allen, & Bowman (2015) Embracing Complexity.
Philanthropic Models: Lynn & Coffman (2024) Passing in the Dark regarding hidden mental models.
Adaptive Leadership: Margaret Wheatley (2011, 2023) on patterns of decline and leadership sanity.
Social Complexity: Delgado & Stefancic (2000) on Critical Race Theory; Patricia J. Williams (2021) on narrative/legal patterns (e.g., Skittles as Matterphor).
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): John Holland (1992, 2014); Steven M. Manson (2001) regarding the self-organizing nature of systems.

V. Citations

Mandatory: Every factual claim must have an inline citation in brackets [e.g., (Meadows, 1999)] with a link where available.
References: Provide a numbered list in APA 7th Edition with URLs at the end of the response. Do not include this list of references in your 350 word limit.

Describe back to me, briefly, your role in this chat.

Prompt 2: Initial review of the map (copy and paste, attach your map, and update red text to clarify and focus the discussion)

The attached systems map is the best understanding of [name of system] as of [year map was completed]. I want to hear your interpretation of the [insert the name or elements in a specific map section] of the map. Do not add new insights, suggest additions, look for implied (but not visible) connections, or otherwise infer beyond what is visibly present in this map. Ensure you are integrating thinking from systems thinking and complexity into how you make sense of this, but do not use these frameworks to go beyond what is in the map. Do not, for this answer only, use any information other than the map itself.

Prompt 3: Bringing into the present day (copy and paste)

Focusing on this same portion of the map, search the internet to identify the current state of the system. Using credible sources, identify how, why, and to what extent the system has changed related to this part of the map. Focus specifically on the forces (people, trends, events, norms, beliefs, phenomena, institutions, laws, policies, etc.) and what these forces have enabled or inhibited. Explain briefly where the most significant forces that have changed since the original map have come from, and what contributed to their development. Cite all sources. Identify where there are conflicting perspectives on how much change has happened or what direction change has taken. Be clear about who holds these conflicting perspectives.

Prompt 4: Exploring biases and assumptions (copy and paste)

This map was developed by a set of stakeholders with deep expertise in the system. I was not part of that group. I want to understand the system today and how it has changed since this map was developed. I am also skeptical about the assumptions and biases underlying this map. Look back through this conversation: what unstated assumptions are in the map and in the way we have explored the map? What perspectives are dominating, and what alternative perspectives may exist that would describe the system quite differently? Cite all sources.

Prompt 5: Exploring an alternative perspective (copy and paste and, if desired, update red text to reflect a specific perspective from the previous answer)

Using credible evidence found through a web search, describe this section of the map using the first alternative perspective that you identified. Consider what nodes remain the same, what connections remain the same, and whether the force we investigated more deeply would still be centered or would be understood differently. Identify what this perspective would change, what might be added, and what might be removed from how we are discussing the current state of this part of the systems map. Cite all sources. Identify where conflicting perspectives exist, even within this perspective. Be clear about who holds these conflicting perspectives.

Prompt 6: Bringing in a different framework (copy and paste)

Look at the same part of the map. This time, search the internet to understand the infrastructure that supports this part of the map: what was in place when the map was developed and what exists now, and whether and how it has changed. Here, infrastructure is the:

Hard Infrastructure (Physical): The tangible assets—roads, bridges, power plants, water pipes, sewage systems, fiber-optic cables.
Soft Infrastructure (Organizational/Institutional): The intangible systems—laws, regulations, procedures, maintenance schedules, and human institutions that manage the physical assets.
Digital Infrastructure (Information/Tech): The "new" infrastructure—5G networks, data centers, smart grids, and Internet of Things (IoT) sensors that monitor and control the physical systems.

Maintain a focus on systems thinking, where infrastructure is a network where one type of infrastructure depends on another, failure can cascade through the infrastructure, infrastructure can enable higher-level outcomes or disable decisions and options, and is often invisible or ignored until it fails or constrains choices in unacceptable ways. Cite all sources. Identify where conflicting perspectives exist, even within this perspective. Be clear about who holds these conflicting perspectives.

Prompt 7: Exploring through the framework (copy and paste)

Go deeper into the infrastructure you identified in the previous answer. Use the internet to guide your insights. Use this blog post as your framework: https://substack.com/home/post/p-186642970. Focus on how the infrastructure related to this part of the map, in the present day, constrains choices by actors in the system, both visible and hidden. Explore the power dynamics related to who designs, develops, controls, and can adapt the infrastructure. Cite all sources. Identify where conflicting perspectives exist, even within this perspective. Be clear about who holds these conflicting perspectives.

Prompt 8: Identifying points of leverage to explore (copy and paste, update the red text to clarify the goal)

Look back through each answer in this discussion. Treat this as your data, along with the original systems map. Do not search the web again. If the goal is to [state a systems goal - a problem you want to solve or outcome to achieve], identify three leverage points based on the map and updated insights about the state of the system. Explain what forces currently exist, what infrastructure is relevant, and what changes might be prioritized for each one. Be clear on whether the point of leverage (or nuances about how to address it) is equally relevant in both time points (when the map was developed and today) or has changed over time.