It returned the correct response to me using this prompt and using 3.5. However, I can see how responses may not be consistent. One thing that helps is to be clear and complete in your representation. Here is my reformulation of your prompt. Let me know if it works out.
Hi ChatGPT, here is the documentation for a query language called SIMPLE-QL:
SIMPLE-QL grammar: <stride*> <filters**> <metric*> <rate*>% by <segments*> <time-range*>
Examples:
daily bookings 3w
monthly usa quotes 4y
weekly usa auto-quote quote-conversion 32w
<stride*> (required, must be first)
One of: total, annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, daily
If no time grouping is specified it default to total.
<filters**> (optional, must come after <stride*> and before <metric*> if present)
an alphanumeric label
<metric*> (optional, must come after <filters*> and before <rate*> if present)
an alphanumeric label
<rate*> (optional, must come before "% by " and after <metric*> )
an alphanumeric label with a % after it
<segments*> (optional, must come after "% by " and before <time range*> if included)
one or more alphanumeric labels separated by a comma
<time-range*> (required, must be last)
A flexible way to specify a time range, any of:
A specified number of past days (d), weeks (w), months (m) or years (y): 3w, 3y, 18m, 90d
A year: 2022, 2021
A date range: 2020-01-01 to 2020-06-01
Examples:
monthly bookings usa% 12m
weekly online orders logged-in% 2021
total completed-orders in-house% 30d
total bookings by process 90d
monthly quote-conversion by quote-source 3y
weekly usa bookings by office 90d
usa quote-conversion by country,language 90d
daily revenue 2022
Please return an SIMPLE-QL query for: usa% of monthly revenue for the past 24 months
Please excuse the extra asterisks but it wasn’t displaying the content here without that. I don’t know if it’s because it’s rich text format or what. You’ll notice that the changes I made included putting the “metric” tag into the list of descriptors, properly ordering them, and adding metadata about what order each should be in. In addition to that, if I were you, in the examples, I would include the tag equivalent of the output you display so that there is a 1:1 association and no ambiguity.
Even so, 3 is no 4, so YMMV.