Compare opportunities against your life
Similar role titles can mean different weeks. Compare your options using entered priorities, scores, evidence and must-haves.
This example runs in your browser without AI. You can also copy a starter to continue in ChatGPT.
A working local example. Your changes stay in this page until you choose to save, copy or download. No AI model is called.
Nearby role with fixed hours leads on your entries
Nearby role with fixed hours has the highest weighted score among the included options marked as meeting your must-haves. Check the evidence before deciding.
What matters
- Fit with preferred hours
Priority (0-10): 8
- Manageable travel
Priority (0-10): 7
- Relevant development
Priority (0-10): 5
Options and evidence
- Nearby role with fixed hours
Weighted score: 7.05 / 10. Fit with preferred hours: 6/10; Manageable travel: 9/10; Relevant development: 6/10. Evidence and open questions: No evidence recorded yet.
- Flexible role with more travel
Weighted score: 6.75 / 10. Fit with preferred hours: 9/10; Manageable travel: 4/10; Relevant development: 7/10. Evidence and open questions: No evidence recorded yet.
- Supported transition into adjacent work
Weighted score: 6.75 / 10. Fit with preferred hours: 6/10; Manageable travel: 6/10; Relevant development: 9/10. Evidence and open questions: No evidence recorded yet.
Check what could change the choice
- Verify the dealbreakers and the evidence behind the scores that matter most. Note any unresolved fact, then revisit the comparison before deciding.
The starting values are examples, not verified facts about your situation. Replace them with your own inputs and keep unverified assumptions visible. Multiply each score by its priority, add the results, then divide by the total priority. Weighted scores summarize your priorities and judgments. They do not verify evidence or make an objective recommendation.
Work with KevinFor the moments like this.
Two opportunities can have similar titles while affecting your week very differently. Commute, flexibility, learning support, and the actual tasks may matter as much as a headline figure. Use fictional options to practice making those priorities explicit, then identify the facts that would need verification before comparing any real offer.
What becomes possible
Use the sample arrangements or enter your own opportunities. Edit hours, travel and development priorities, add scores and evidence, and mark which options meet your must-haves. Verify written terms before committing.
Put this to work.
Use the starter in ChatGPT or work with Kevin on your own situation.
Try it in ChatGPT
Copy the starter, open ChatGPT and paste it into a conversation. Add only the details you want to share. Nothing is sent automatically.
Review the starter for ChatGPT
ChatGPT access and features depend on your account. Keep private details out until you understand the settings of the service you use.
Choose how you want help.
Get guidance while you do the work, or ask Kevin to scope and deliver an agreed result.
Guidance and finished work are priced separately. You and Kevin agree the scope and price before work begins.
Sources, capability notes and how this example works
This local experience uses authored sample content and deterministic controls. Changing an input updates the example; no model runs, outside records are checked, or real-world actions are performed. Use the sources for the underlying AI capabilities and audience context, and the human check above when you apply the idea.
LinkedIn talent research, January 2026 ↗November 2025 survey; actual AI use and intentions are combined in the 81% figure. Accessed September 11, 2026.
LinkedIn job match documentation ↗Matching compares profile/resume information with job requirements; it is not the employer's decision. Accessed September 11, 2026.
Research checked September 11, 2026. Access to specific AI features depends on your account, plan and region. Sample amounts, timings, scores and feedback illustrate the method rather than claim measured outcomes.