--- title: "Superlatives Review" description: "Participants review their notes from a lecture or briefing, independently select points that match specific superlative prompts, and then pair up to negotiate and justify their top choices." last_updated: "2026-09-07" canonical: "https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pfp-july-2003/" --- # Superlatives Review Participants review their notes from a lecture or briefing, independently select points that match specific superlative prompts, and then pair up to negotiate and justify their top choices. **Time:** 15 minutes. Matches the source activity time band of 10 to 15 minutes for an interactive lecture review round. **People:** 4 to 24. Independent review followed by pairs and brief plenary shares ## Choose this exercise **Purpose:** Review and prioritize key presentation content by evaluating it against distinct criteria from individual and peer perspectives. **Use it when:** Immediately after a lecture, technical briefing, or content-heavy presentation when participants need to process and prioritize dense information. **Skip it when:** Skip when the group has not just received shared presentation content or when the session requires generative brainstorming rather than content review. ## Materials and tools - Notepads and pens for each participant (or digital note-taking devices) - Slide or whiteboard displaying the prompt words ## Before participants arrive 1. Deliver a presentation or briefing where participants were told in advance to take notes. 2. Write the review categories on a board or prepare a slide with the terms: Most Important and Most Useful. ## Say this to open We just completed our briefing. Review your notes individually right now. Scan your page and select the single most important point covered. You will have two minutes to decide and write down your reasoning. ## How to run it ### 1. Scan for most important point (3 minutes) Tell participants to scan their presentation notes silently. Each person selects the single most important point and jots down a brief sentence explaining why. After two minutes, invite two volunteers to share their choice and their reasoning with the whole room. Affirm valid logic without declaring a single official answer. ### 2. Select most useful point (2 minutes) Introduce a new superlative category: the single most useful point for daily work. Give participants 90 seconds to review their notes again and make a fresh selection independently. ### 3. Pair negotiation (5 minutes) Ask participants to turn to a partner. If a participant is left over, form one trio. Partners share their selected most useful points. If they picked the same point, they outline shared evidence for why it matters. If they picked different points, they must discuss and agree on which one represents the most useful item overall, or clarify the trade-off. No one is forced to speak if they prefer to listen and take notes. ### 4. Plenary report-out and closure (5 minutes) Call on three pairs to report their agreed choice and their underlying rationale. Invite brief reactions from the room. Close by noting that criteria like importance and usefulness shift depending on operational contexts. ## Debrief questions - Which presentation points sparked the most disagreement between partners? - How did changing the question from most important to most useful shift what you noticed in your notes? - Which single takeaway will you apply first in your regular work? **Finished output:** A prioritized list of key lecture takeaways vetted by pairs and shared with the room. ## Remote Present the superlative prompts on shared presentation slides. Have participants review their personal notes individually, then send them to two-person breakout rooms for five minutes to compare and agree on their most useful point. Convene in the main room and have three pairs type their selection into the shared chat or unmute to share. ## Hybrid Ensure remote attendees have digital access to presentation slides or shared notes. Pair in-person participants with local partners and remote participants in virtual breakout rooms. Gather plenary report-outs by alternating between an in-person pair and a remote pair speaking via the room audio. ## Access and participation choices - Participants may refer to printed handouts or slide printouts if note-taking during the presentation was difficult. - Participants may pass during plenary call-outs or choose to observe during paired discussions without giving a reason. ## If the session gets stuck **Partners cannot reach agreement on a single most useful point within the time limit.** Instruct them to identify the specific operational difference that makes each point useful in different contexts, then report that distinction. **Participants did not take sufficient notes during the preceding presentation.** Provide a one-page summary slide or handout of key presentation points so everyone has material to evaluate. ## Terms used here - Superlative: A category representing an extreme quality, such as most important, most useful, or most surprising. ## Sources and adaptation Observed in the July 2003 issue of Play for Performance published by Workshops by Thiagi, Inc., edited by Sivasailam Thiagarajan. The supplied evidence is the July 2003 issue of Play for Performance edited by Sivasailam Thiagarajan, which contained several short activities. The old public copy erroneously used the issue title and masthead as the activity. This run sheet extracts the primary runnable interactive lecture game from the issue, titled Superlatives. UWT added explicit step timers totaling 15 minutes, standard group size guidelines, and access choices. [thiagi.net](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/july2003.html) Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/pfp-july-2003/