Answer D is correct. Iterative refinement should begin by diagnosing the current output against the original requirements. The reviewer must identify specific weaknesses such as missing information, unsupported claims, incorrect tone, poor organization, excessive length, or failure to follow the requested format. This diagnosis provides evidence for deciding what must change in the prompt.

After identifying the weaknesses, the reviewer can modify the prompt to address them, which corresponds to Option C. The revised prompt is then submitted and the resulting output captured, as described in Option A. Finally, the new output is compared with the original criteria to determine whether the revision improved performance, as stated in Option B. The logical sequence is therefore D, C, A, and B.

Beginning with prompt modification before diagnosing the failure encourages random changes and makes it difficult to determine which revision produced an improvement. Similarly, a new output cannot be submitted or evaluated before a targeted revision has been created. Anthropic’s guidance recommends defining clear success criteria, evaluating results against those criteria, and using a structured self-correction process: generate a draft, review it, and then refine it based on identified deficiencies. Effective iteration is therefore diagnostic and evidence-based rather than trial and error. Anthropic prompting best practices