Below you will find the improved reusable investigation prompt. Remember to add details of products you already use or wish to include in the investigation. 

The prompt should now require the investigation to discover options before choosing a winner. It should also avoid automatically favouring premium products, ensure that current and cheaper alternatives receive fair consideration, and separate the evidence for a finished product from evidence about its raw materials.

To use the prompt, simply copy and paste below this line and add details of the product you wish to investigate or define the function of the product you are investigating. Please share your results at The Abstract Essentialism Foundation Google Group to create a better world.

The Conscious Product Investigation

A practical guide to comparing products, reducing harm and exploring regeneration

Why I created this prompt

I want to make better-informed choices about the products I buy and use, but I don't want to rely solely on marketing claims or assume that the most expensive eco-labelled product is the best.

I want to understand the product I already use, compare realistic alternatives, consider cost and practicality, and explore whether any option can contribute to restoring nature rather than simply reducing damage.

This prompt is designed to help me—and anyone who wishes to join the investigation—ask better questions and share useful findings.

My guiding question is: Can I move from consuming less harm to creating more good?

My progression is:

Conventional → Less harmful → Sustainable → Circular → Regenerative

Please follow the instructions below when investigating my chosen product.

1. Begin with my current product

Identify the product's purpose and what I need it to do.

Review the ingredients or materials, packaging, available manufacturer information and any environmental claims I provide.

Explain its strengths, weaknesses and uncertainties without assuming it is either good or bad.

Consider whether I could achieve the same purpose by using less, maintaining something I already own, repairing or reusing an item, changing my method or not buying anything.

Do not recommend replacing a product prematurely. Consider the environmental and financial consequences of discarding something that is still useful.

2. Find a range of alternatives before recommending one

Search for several realistic alternatives available in my country. Do not jump to a single solution.

Where relevant, include:

• A low-cost or budget option.
• A straightforward, widely available alternative.
• A product with a simpler formulation or less packaging.
• An option with credible ethical or environmental sourcing.
• An option with potential regenerative benefits.
• A non-product solution, such as using what I already own, repairing, reusing or changing my method.

Include both lower-priced and premium products where appropriate. Do not assume the premium option is better.

If only a few suitable alternatives can be found, explain why. Do not invent products, prices or claims.

3. Compare the alternatives fairly

Present the findings in a table where possible.

For each option, consider:

• Product name and type.
• Main purpose and performance.
• Ingredients or materials.
• Purchase price and approximate cost per use, if enough information is available.
• Packaging and practical end-of-life options.
• Availability in my country.
• Health and safety considerations relevant to the intended use.
• Environmental advantages.
• Environmental disadvantages and trade-offs.
• Raw-material sourcing and transparency.
• Evidence of sustainable, circular or regenerative practices.
• Important information that is still missing.

Use current sources for prices, formulations and availability. Link to product information so that I can verify the details.

If cost per use cannot be calculated reliably, say so rather than guessing. Do not compare different package sizes using purchase price alone.

4. Examine health and safety responsibly

Identify credible concerns relating to toxicity, irritation, allergy, exposure or persistence.

Distinguish between established evidence, plausible concerns and uncertainty. Consider how the product is used, including whether it is rinsed off, left on the skin, inhaled, ingested or released into the environment.

Do not declare a product safe or unsafe solely because an ingredient appears on a list. Explain relevant context and avoid medical diagnoses.

5. Investigate the whole environmental life cycle

Where evidence is available, consider:

• Extraction or cultivation of raw materials.
• Renewable, recycled and finite resources.
• Farming methods, soil health, biodiversity and water.
• Manufacturing energy, water, pollution and waste.
• Packaging and transport.
• Resources required during use.
• Product life, durability, maintenance and repair.
• Reuse, refill, recycling and disposal.
• Microplastics, persistent chemicals and other relevant pollution.

Consider the amount used per application and how long the product lasts.

Do not claim that a product has a lower overall environmental footprint merely because it is solid, natural, local, biodegradable, organic or packaged in glass.

Where there is insufficient data for a whole-life comparison, identify the missing information and keep the conclusion provisional.

6. Investigate regenerative potential separately

For products made from agricultural, forestry or other biological materials, look beyond the finished product and investigate the actual source where possible.

Consider whether there is credible evidence of practices and outcomes such as:

• Improved soil health and soil cover.
• Greater biodiversity and habitat protection.
• Improved water quality or management.
• Reduced reliance on harmful inputs.
• Responsible renewable-resource management.
• Circular systems that reduce waste and extraction.
• Positive social outcomes for workers and communities.

Distinguish between a manufacturer's intention, a farming practice and a demonstrated outcome.

Do not assume that a regenerative farm's existence means its materials are used in a particular product. Verify the supplier relationship wherever possible.

Classify the evidence as one of the following:

• Verified regenerative: credible evidence supports relevant regenerative practices and outcomes for the actual supply chain being assessed.
• Potentially regenerative: there is a promising possibility, but important information about sourcing or outcomes is missing.
• Lower-impact: there are plausible improvements, but regenerative outcomes have not been established.
• Unclear: the available evidence is insufficient to make a meaningful assessment.

Explain the reasoning behind the classification.

7. Check environmental and ethical claims

Distinguish between:

• Independently supported evidence.
• Manufacturer claims that have not been independently verified.
• Marketing language without sufficient supporting information.
• Information that remains unknown.

Do not assume that words such as natural, organic, biodegradable, compostable, recyclable, plant-based, non-toxic, sustainable, carbon-neutral or regenerative prove that a product is better.

Check the scope and relevance of any certification. A certification may support one specific claim without proving that the entire product is environmentally superior.

Prefer primary sources, credible independent research and relevant certification information. Include links to sources for important claims.

8. Consider affordability and practical use

My aim is to find realistic improvements that people with different budgets can make.

Compare purchase price, likely cost per use, durability, performance, availability, convenience and any additional equipment or effort required.

Consider whether a cheaper alternative could achieve most of the desired benefit.

Do not assume that DIY products are automatically cheaper, safer or more sustainable. Account for ingredients, equipment, energy, waste and safety requirements.

If a more expensive option appears environmentally promising, explain its additional benefits and the evidence supporting them. Let me decide whether the extra cost is worthwhile.

9. Give a balanced recommendation

Conclude with these seven sections:

1. My current product

What it does well, what could be improved and whether I should continue using it.

2. Best budget option

The most promising lower-cost alternative, with its limitations.

3. Best practical alternative

The most sensible balance of performance, cost, convenience and environmental considerations.

4. Best low-waste option

The option that most plausibly reduces unnecessary materials and waste.

5. Best regenerative opportunity

The most promising option for supporting regenerative systems, with evidence and uncertainties clearly explained.

6. Best option requiring no new purchase

What I can do with what I already own, or how I can avoid an unnecessary purchase.

7. My recommended next step

One realistic action I can take now, together with any questions that should be answered before spending money.

An option may appear in more than one category. There does not have to be a single overall winner.

10. Give each option a provisional assessment

Use these categories where helpful:

• 🟢 Regenerative or demonstrably restorative: credible evidence supports relevant restorative outcomes.
• 🟢 Lower-impact sustainable choice: a reasonable improvement, but regeneration is not established.
• 🟡 Improvement possible: useful features alongside notable limitations.
• 🟠 Significant concerns: meaningful problems or avoidable impacts deserve attention.
• 🔴 Avoid if practical: serious concerns are supported by credible evidence and a reasonable alternative exists.

Explain the reasoning for each assessment. Do not present these categories as scientific scores or imply that an option is regenerative without adequate evidence.

11. Identify what we still need to learn

Finish with a short list of unanswered questions.

Where appropriate, suggest specific questions to ask the manufacturer about ingredients, suppliers, farming practices, packaging, product life and environmental evidence.

If new information could change the recommendation, explain how.

The investigation should remain open to correction as better information becomes available.

My product details

Product name and type: [Enter here]

What I use it for: [Enter here]

Country where I live or shop: [Enter here]

Current price and frequency of use: [Enter here]

Ingredients or materials: [Paste here, if available]

Packaging and disposal: [Enter here]

What matters most to me: [For example, health, cost, low waste, local sourcing, biodiversity or regenerative agriculture]

My budget: [Enter here, or leave blank]

Any practical limitations: [Enter here]

Please carry out the investigation using this information. If something important is missing, explain what is unknown and proceed with appropriate qualifications rather than inventing facts.

The principle behind the investigation

The purpose is not to find the product with the most impressive environmental claims.

It is to understand the choices available, compare them fairly, avoid unnecessary consumption, and identify practical ways to reduce harm.

Where there is a credible opportunity to go further, I want to explore how my choices might support healthier ecosystems and more regenerative systems.

Can I move from consuming less harm to creating more good?