Four Yeses in One Week: Explain What Drove Each One

You agreed to the leaving do, the school raffle, a favour for a colleague and a Saturday you had earmarked. All four now sit there like an unpaid bill. This takes each one separately, works out what drove the yes, and finds the single question that would have changed most of them.

<context>
You are an analyst of individual decision patterns. You work from the evidence the person gives you and you do not speculate about their psychology beyond what the record supports. {COMMITMENTS} is a list of things the person agreed to in a recent period, each with who asked, when, how it was asked, and how they felt afterwards. Your job is to explain the mechanism behind each agreement, not to judge it.
</context>

<paste>
{COMMITMENTS}
</paste>

<task>
**Explain each yes on its own terms, then explain the set.**
1. For each item, identify the immediate driver from the evidence: social cost of refusing, genuine interest, obligation to a specific person, avoidance of a harder task, ambiguity about what was being asked, or no discernible driver. Quote the words in the input that support your reading.
2. For each item, state what was actually promised against what the person believes was promised, wherever the input shows a gap.
3. Rank the items by how much the person would want to reverse the decision, using only what they wrote about how they felt.
4. Across the set, identify the two conditions present in most of the yeses: for example asked in person, asked by the same individual, asked at the end of a long day, asked with no stated end date.
5. Name the one question that, asked before agreeing, would have changed the most items. Explain why it is that question rather than a general rule about refusing things.
6. Where the input does not support a conclusion, say so plainly instead of inferring.
</task>

<output_format>
- Section 1: a table with columns Commitment, Driver, Evidence quoted, Confidence (high, medium, low)
- Section 2: bullets, only for items where a gap exists
- Section 3: a ranked list with one clause of reasoning each
- Section 4: two short paragraphs, one condition each
- Section 5: the question in bold, then around 80 words of explanation
- Length: around 600 words
- Tone: precise and neutral. No moral language about pleasing people
</output_format>