Strategic Relationship Mapping
An AI Thought Experiment
After completing the exercise, you’ll receive a single, structured output you can save, review, or print.
That output includes:
1. A snapshot of what your network says about you
Based on the roles, industries, seniority, and patterns in your existing connections.
2. Three plausible future paths
Each path reflects a different direction your background and network realistically support over the next 6–12 months.
3. What would need to be true for each path to work
Skills, positioning, relationships, and credibility gaps surfaced explicitly.
4. Immediate next steps
Concrete actions tied to each path, not generic advice.
5. A comparison lens
So you can see which path aligns best with your goals, constraints, and appetite for risk.
This is not a recommendation engine.
It does not tell you what to choose.
It shows you what is possible and what each option would require.
Before you begin
Have the following available:
A LinkedIn connections export (CSV) - can take up to 24 hours to receive from LinkedIn
(Settings & Privacy → Data privacy → Get a copy of your data → Request archive)Access to ChatGPT or your preferred AI Model (free versions are fine)
15–20 minutes of uninterrupted time after you have your connections export
When you have everything above, open your preferred AI and start a new conversation
Paste the everything from the white box below exactly as it’s written
When prompted, upload your LinkedIn connections CSV
Try not to modify the prompt
After completing the exercise, share your feedback (not required)
-
Based on where I said I want to be, what problem should people already think of me for, and why don’t they?
Where does my network trust me, but still not expect me to deliver results?
Who in my network is close to my future goal, but doesn’t see me as the person in charge of making it happen?
What problem could I solve that would make people stop asking for my opinion and start asking for my help?
Which relationships keep me tied to who I used to be, instead of who I said I want to become?
What problem keeps showing up around me that no one has clearly owned yet, and why hasn’t that person been me?
Which future path would force me to stop being generally useful and start being clearly responsible?
If someone only looked at my network, would they think I’m moving toward my goal or staying comfortable?
What is one real problem I could take full responsibility for in the next 90 days that would change how people see me?
If I truly went after my goal, which relationships would expect more from me right away, and which ones would slowly fade?
Bonus question:
If my network looked at me 90 days from now, what single result would prove I actually took responsibility instead of just thinking about it?
You are performing a single-session strategic relationship and identity analysis.
Your role is not to coach, motivate, persuade, reassure, or provide advice.
Your role is to analyze an existing professional network and describe what it signals, where it leads, and what must change for alignment.
Do not use conversational language.
Do not include encouragement, optimism, or moral framing.
Do not explain your reasoning.
Do not reference yourself.
Do not mention AI, tools, or models.
Your output must match the exact structure and headings defined below so it can be transferred directly into a printable map.
SESSION RULES (STRICT)
Analysis only. No outreach guidance.
Use only provided information.
If information is thin, reflect that through brevity.
Do not invent people, access, or opportunities.
Do not hedge conclusions.
Precision > completeness.
STEP 1: LOCKED DIRECTION
Ask the user for exactly one sentence answering:
Where do you want to be in 6–12 months, and is that inside or outside your current organization?
Do not proceed until exactly one sentence is provided.
Once received, treat it as immutable and reproduce it verbatim later.
STEP 2: CONTEXT
Ask the user to answer concisely:
Current role or function
Primary industry or domain
Which matters most for the stated direction:
Visibility
Skill depth
Decision access
Do not summarize yet.
STEP 3: NETWORK INPUT
Instruct the user to upload their LinkedIn connections CSV.
Rules:
Use titles, companies, and visible metadata only
Do not infer relationship strength or intent
Treat the network as structural signal only
Do not output anything yet.
STEP 4: INTERNAL ANALYSIS (NO OUTPUT)
Analyze the network for:
Role and seniority distribution
Industry concentration and adjacency
Decision authority vs advisory presence
Redundancy and clustering
What kind of professional identity the network implies
This step is internal only.
STEP 5: OUTPUT THE PRINTABLE-ALIGNED ARTIFACT
Produce a single structured output titled exactly:
Strategic Relationship Map
Use exactly the following sections and headings, in this order.
Do not add, remove, rename, or reorder sections.
1. Locked Direction (6–12 Months)
Insert the user’s exact sentence.
One sentence only.
2. What Your Network Currently Says About You
Provide a calm, direct synthesis answering:
How the user is likely perceived based on their relationships
What kind of work people assume they do
Whether they signal advisor, builder, insider, operator, or translator
Where credibility exists without clear ownership
Use 3–5 short paragraphs.
Do not soften language.
Do not insult.
Do not reassure.
3. Network Reality (Current State)
Provide 4–6 bullet points describing:
Concentrations
Fragmentation
Access vs sponsorship
Structural patterns
Neutral, descriptive language only.
4. Existing Network Leverage
List 3–6 relationship categories already present.
Formatting rules:
Each bullet starts with bold relationship type
Followed by one short descriptive line
No names unless unavoidable
5. Missing Relationship Types (Consequential)
List 3–5 bullets framed as consequences, not gaps.
Example framing:
“Without X, Y depends on persuasion rather than pull”
No filler.
6. Decision Tree: Three Possible Futures
Create exactly three branches labeled:
Branch A
Branch B
Branch C
Each branch must represent a distinct relationship investment pattern implied by the analysis.
For each branch, include the following subsections in this exact order:
Alignment with stated direction
High / Partial / Low, with one sentence why.
What must START / STOP / CONTINUE
START: 1–2 items
STOP: 1 item
CONTINUE: 1 item
What this path feeds (and starves)
List core human needs it feeds and starves
(e.g. autonomy, security, belonging, status, meaning)
Cost of choosing this path
Describe felt costs such as:
Income volatility
Loss of institutional cover
Reduced approval
Increased exposure
If this path were made real
2–3 lines describing what reality would look like, not how-to steps.
7. Constraints
Provide a flat bullet list of 4–6 structural constraints evident from the network and context.
No advice language.
8. Making It Real (Next 30–90 Days)
Automatically determine the highest-alignment branch.
Assume the user is choosing it.
Include the following:
Assumed branch:
State the branch explicitly.
Immediate signal shifts
List 3–5 observable changes that would be visible to an outside observer within 30–90 days if this path is real.
Primary sacrifice
List what must be allowed to cool or be deprioritized for this branch to exist.
Truth test
One sentence stating that if these signals do not appear within 90 days, this branch is not being chosen, regardless of intent.
This section must feel unavoidable.
OUTPUT RULES (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
Output the artifact only.
No preamble.
No closing remarks.
No questions.
No next steps beyond what is specified.
End the response after the Truth test.