The photo has peonies; your proposal needs a plan you can review
Imagine this fictional case: someone requests a loose-looking cream and soft pink bouquet with peonies as the focal flower. You have not confirmed peonies for the order date. Before drafting another proposal, ask whether that flower is essential. Then select the options you would be willing to assess. This guide proposes asking AI to draft an explanation of those options, rather than delegating the bouquet design.
If peonies are essential, keep the proposal pending: in this exercise a rose does not satisfy that requirement. If other flowers are acceptable, ask the draft to preserve the differences and questions you have recorded. Check the text against your sheet before using it. This proposed method has not been validated in a florist business; it guarantees no correct response and confirms no stock, quantities or delivery.
Before the prompt: separate the bouquet’s intent from the particular flower
A visual reference is not a workshop recipe. Record what should be preserved: palette, shape, sense of volume, focal flower, wrapping and intended use. Separate essentials from flexible preferences and questions still to ask. This exercise does not identify species or quantities from a photo.
Florería La Maison’s policy distinguishes focal flowers from secondary flowers and discusses alternatives according to availability. This illustrates how that business explains its service; it does not establish your workshop’s stock or require you to adopt its terms. Here we propose an administrative and writing trial: floral judgement remains with the professional.
- Essential flower: preserve its exact name and do not seek a replacement without permission.
- Colour and shape: specify what can change; “soft pink” does not make every pink flower suitable.
- Date: stock checked today does not establish availability on the order date.
- Budget: preserve any stated limit, but leave costing to the professional. Without reviewed prices, do not write “for the same price”.
A fictional catalogue where “pending” does not mean “available”
This case and all its data are invented. Order FLOR-018: a cream and soft pink hand-tied bouquet with a loose look and peonies desired; whether peonies are essential is unknown. Other flowers may be explored, but no substitution has been accepted. Order date: to be specified. Price: to be assessed.
In this teaching list, “authorised candidate” only means the florist permits that option to be explored in the exercise. It establishes no botanical equivalence, seasonality, quality, sufficient quantity or real stock. Colours are invented descriptions of these entries, not guaranteed characteristics of an entire species.
| Reference | Entry description | Permission for drafting | Availability for the order |
|---|---|---|---|
| P-01 | Soft pink peony; requested flower | Keep as a preference; do not promise | Unconfirmed |
| R-02 | Cream rose; florist-proposed candidate | May be explored; changes the focal flower | Enquiry pending |
| L-03 | Soft pink lisianthus; florist-proposed candidate | May be explored in a proposal for review | Enquiry pending |
| G-04 | Accompanying greenery from the workshop list | Only as authorised accompanying material | Enquiry pending |
| X-05 | Orange flower outside the agreed palette | Exclude from this exercise | Not relevant to this proposal |
Manual trial: request alternatives and allow no valid option
Try the fictional case and table in a text assistant you are authorised to use. The proposed task is to describe florist-selected options and pending questions. Do not connect orders for this exercise or ask it to identify flowers in a photo, calculate stem counts or design a recipe.
Anthropic documents that Claude can give incorrect or context-inconsistent responses. Its guidance includes allowing uncertainty, restricting information to supplied documents and checking support for claims. Here we adapt that guidance to a drafting trial with a fictional list; the documentation does not validate this prompt or its performance in a florist business.
Example instruction to test: “Use only case FLOR-018 and the fictional table. Do not choose flowers or decide combinations. Describe R-02 and L-03 separately as options the florist has allowed for assessment: cite each reference, preserve its description and explain that the focal flower would change from the requested peony. Do not present them as equivalent. Keep availability, composition, date and price pending. Exclude X-05 and add no species, quantities or acceptance. Ask whether peonies are essential; if so, keep any replacement pending another agreement. End with a short unsent message for florist review. If information is absent, say it is absent.”
To review this trial, first check that the text asks about peonies and keeps the missing data pending. R-02 and L-03 are separate options in the example, not a validated combination. A draft that only supports asking the question may be enough. These are proposed evaluation criteria, not observed assistant results.
One possible draft: “We can explore another cream and soft pink proposal using references reviewed by the workshop. The focal flower would change, and availability, composition and price still need checking. Are peonies essential, or may we consider other flowers?” Do not send it without review.
Review the flowers and what the wording takes for granted
Check every reference against the list. Then read the claims as the person ordering would: “we will have it”, “it looks the same” or “it fits your budget” commit to things this example cannot confirm. Elegant wording can conceal those assumptions.
- If a flower outside the catalogue appears, reject that part and correct the draft.
- If R-02 changes from candidate to “equivalent substitute”, revisit the professional assessment. Similar colour does not validate shape, volume or the result.
- If peonies are essential, keep the proposal pending until availability is resolved or another approach agreed.
- Stock reserved for another order is not free stock. Whoever manages inventory must review what can be used.
- If the response turns an enquiry into a confirmed order or reservation, restore its proposal status. Acceptance is recorded through the business’s usual process.
When a spreadsheet is enough and when to assess an integration
If the problem is knowing which flowers remain, start with a reliable record of availability and reservations. AI cannot repair that data by itself. If the task is explaining options already selected by the florist, try the manual assistant first and measure the review.
Before commissioning software, compare three options for this step: keeping a manual sheet of florist-selected candidates, configuring your current software, or assessing a custom connection. Check with your provider which data can be viewed or exported; this guide establishes no florist software features or compatibility.
If copying data between systems is the obstacle, bring Adaris this scope to assess: a sheet of florist-selected options, the source and review date of the information, and an unsent draft. Before deciding whether it can be built, data access permissions, available exports or APIs, reservations and outdated information would need checking. Feasibility and cost are assessed for the individual case; this guide establishes no compatibility with your software.
This is a proposal for custom software or an AI integration assessed case by case, not an existing proprietary Adaris florist application.
A first pilot that can conclude “this is not useful yet”
Prepare fictional cases with different situations: an essential unconfirmed flower, a flexible palette, no authorised alternatives, outdated availability and an unknown price. Write down in advance what each case should leave pending. Compare manual preparation with assisted preparation and review.
Record invented references, ignored restrictions, unsupported stock or price claims, corrections needed and total time including review. As a proposed rule for this pilot, do not use output that invents availability or turns an alternative into acceptance. No results have been measured and no savings are promised. If the comparison adds no value, keeping the spreadsheet and the florist’s judgement is a valid decision.
Use fictional data and preserve the workshop’s judgement
Do not paste conversations, names, addresses, private photographs or real business information without permission and appropriate terms. Acelera pyme’s guide to generative AI recommends reviewing generated content and protecting privacy. The invented example on this page is enough to start.
Before using real data, agree what is needed, who can see it, where it is kept and how it is corrected or removed. Preserve the reviewed catalogue and order in the business system. Assistant history does not replace checking stock or professionally assessing the bouquet.
Related services
Sources
Do bouquet alternatives mean copying between several lists?
Tell us where your catalogue, preferences and availability come from. With a fictional example, we can assess a limited custom development or integration for reviewable florist proposals. Commercial communication is in Spanish.