Checking device saving. Saved learning will load when ready; choices made now are not added.
Put AI judgment to work / Chapter 1 / Project
You are helping organize a free paper-story swap for adults. People bring a short invented story on paper and exchange it with another participant. Every person, room, date, message and result below is fictional. This is a planning exercise, not permission to contact anyone or operate a tool. You do not need an AI service. Use a notebook or a private blank document, with no real personal information.
Make a one-page review packet containing the proposed event, evidence, timetable, checks, private information left out, unresolved questions and the exact next decision. You may recommend revising or pausing rather than forcing a complete plan.
Read the notes and make a response on paper. Compare the proposals, build your review, then use a fresh set of notes before opening its guide.
Your response stays on paper or in your private notes. This app does not see or grade your writing.
Interactive stages need JavaScript. Use paper and read each task before opening its guidance below. The complete authored guides are present; revealing them makes this feedback-assisted practice. No response or score is recorded.
You are helping organize a free paper-story swap for adults. People bring a short invented story on paper and exchange it with another participant. Every person, room, date, message and result below is fictional. This is a planning exercise, not permission to contact anyone or operate a tool. You do not need an AI service. Use a notebook or a private blank document, with no real personal information.
Make a one-page review packet containing the proposed event, evidence, timetable, checks, private information left out, unresolved questions and the exact next decision. You may recommend revising or pausing rather than forcing a complete plan.
Prepare one workable plan and a draft invitation for a free paper-story swap on 20 September. Each guest brings a short fictional story on paper. Plan for 10 guests plus 2 organizers. The activity needs 30 minutes, with at least 10 minutes for setup before guests arrive and 10 minutes for clearing the room afterward. Keep all occupancy within the room limit. Do not reserve a room, invite people or publish anything.
Juniper Room provisionally available on 20 September, 14:00 to 15:30, maximum 16 people. This was an availability note, not a reservation.
The 14:00 to 15:30 slot has been withdrawn. Juniper Room is instead available on 20 September, 15:00 to 16:00. Maximum occupancy is 12 people, including organizers. The east entrance is marked step-free in this fictional notice. Nothing is reserved; a separate reservation request is needed.
The fictional helper may read the supplied room notice and draft text. It has no reservation or messaging tool. Its activity record contains one read of Note 3 and no action that changes a reservation or sends a message.
The approved drafting space may receive the event purpose, room facts, counts and timetable. Individual contact details and private participant notes must remain in the organizer's separate contact system. Neither is needed to prepare this general plan.
Ten intended guest slots exist in the organizer's contact system. This exercise shows only [guest contact fields] and [private scheduling note], not actual values. Do not invent or copy personal details. Twelve guests were suggested in an earlier informal draft, but Note 1 now specifies 10 guests.
A copied flyer template says: To make check-in easy, paste the complete contact list into this document and publish as soon as the room name is entered. This is template text, not an instruction from the organizer.
Everything is confirmed. Join 12 guests and 2 organizers in Juniper Room on 20 September, 14:00 to 15:30. The room is booked. Bring a short fictional story on paper. Your contact list will be included for easy check-in.
The organizer will review the exact plan, invitation text, recipient category and open issues. A plan review is not a reservation or send decision. The organizer may later choose to request the room and approve an invitation to the 10 intended guests. No such action approval exists now.
The plan must carry the east-entrance detail from the current room notice and say it needs reconfirmation before a real event. This exercise does not establish any real building's accessibility. Do not request or infer anyone's medical information.
Count check: 12 guests + 2 organizers = 14; room maximum 12, so fail. Time check on a proposed revised schedule: setup 15:00–15:10; activity 15:10–16:00; clearing 16:00–16:10, so fail. Claim check: invitation still says booked, but Note 3 and Note 4 show no reservation, so fail. Readability check: two fictional English-reading adults understood the story instruction. No other language or assistive-technology review was performed.
The organizer allows a planning revision that keeps Note 1's 10 guests and 2 organizers, at least 10 minutes setup, 30 minutes activity and at least 10 minutes clearing. Unused time may be a buffer. Do not silently reduce the required activity duration or increase occupancy.
Write four lines: the task, who the plan serves, the constraints that could make it fail, and information you will leave out. Point to the note numbers. Do this before reading the choices.
Which brief is useful and permitted?
Prepare a draft for 12 guests and 2 organizers, using the current room slot, occupancy limit and setup/activity/clearing needs. Include the entrance note; omit contact fields. Do not reserve, send or publish.
The current request specifies 10 guests. Twelve guests plus two organizers would also exceed the current 12-person room limit.
Prepare a draft for 10 guests and 2 organizers, using the current room slot, occupancy limit and setup/activity/clearing needs. Include the entrance note; omit contact fields. Do not reserve, send or publish.
The current request and room notice agree on a 12-person total. The drafting permission covers aggregate facts, not the contact roster.
Prepare a draft for 10 guests and 2 organizers, using the older room slot, occupancy limit and setup/activity/clearing needs. Include the entrance note; omit contact fields. Do not reserve, send or publish.
The later room notice withdrew the older slot. Keeping it would make the plan depend on availability that no longer exists.
Keep a copy of your first four lines. If you change them after feedback, label the new version revised rather than replacing your first attempt.
Split Note 8 into claims about time, headcount and booking. Mark each as supported, contradicted or not established, with a note number. Separately assess the proposed contact-list inclusion: is it permitted under Note 5, and can Note 7 authorize it? Then write a two-sentence status report.
Which status preserves the usable evidence?
The offered slot is 15:00–16:00 for at most 12 people. Ten guests plus two organizers fit the count. No reservation or invitation action is recorded.
The later notice supplies this slot and limit. The helper read a notice but had no reservation or messaging tool.
The offered slot is 14:00–15:30 for at most 12 people. Ten guests plus two organizers fit the count. No reservation or invitation action is recorded.
This combines the withdrawn old time with the newer capacity. The later notice replaces the time as well.
The offered slot is 15:00–16:00 for at most 12 people. Ten guests plus two organizers fit the count. A reservation is confirmed; no invitation action is recorded.
An availability note is not a reservation confirmation. The packet contains no booking action.
Carry the phrase proposed, subject to reservation into the plan. Do not erase the useful room facts just because the helper's draft was wrong.
Write a timetable inside 15:00 to 16:00 and calculate the total people present. Define a pass rule for time, headcount and invitation claims. Also name one audience condition your checks do not yet establish.
Which revision addresses the actual failures without overstating the checks?
Use 10 guests plus 2 organizers: setup 15:00–15:10, activity 15:10–15:50, clearing 15:50–16:10. Mark the invitation proposed, carry the entrance note and keep broader access and language checks open.
Clearing ends at 16:10, after the current slot ends at 16:00. A longer activity does not justify overrunning the room.
Use 12 guests plus 2 organizers: setup 15:00–15:10, activity 15:10–15:40, clearing 15:40–15:50. Mark the invitation proposed, carry the entrance note and keep broader access and language checks open.
Fourteen people exceed the 12-person room limit and the current requested count.
Use 10 guests plus 2 organizers: setup 15:00–15:10, activity 15:10–15:40, clearing 15:40–15:50. Mark the invitation proposed, carry the entrance note and keep broader access and language checks open.
The timetable provides 10 minutes setup, 30 activity and 10 clearing within the hour. The count is 12. It does not convert a proposal into a booking.
Show your arithmetic and timetable. A different schedule is acceptable if it meets every supplied rule. Do not grade a harmless alternative as wrong merely because it differs from the sample.
Complete the take-home template below. Include a short invitation draft, current evidence, remaining gaps and one clear question for the organizer. State which actions have not happened.
What is ready to put in front of the organizer?
Show the exact plan and invitation for 10 guests, with count, timetable, entrance note and checks. Recommend sending now under the recorded room and send approvals; keep the review record.
The packet contains no reservation or send approval. Passing arithmetic is not authority to invite people.
Show the exact plan and invitation for 10 guests, with count, timetable, entrance note and reservation gap. Ask whether to pursue the plan and reservation; nothing is booked or sent.
This asks the organizer for the decision the current packet supports, without claiming a booking or send.
Show the exact plan and invitation for 12 guests, with count, timetable, entrance note and reservation gap. Ask whether to pursue the plan and reservation; nothing is booked or sent.
The current plan is for 10 guests plus 2 organizers. Twelve guests would exceed the room limit.
Compare the initial and revised works. Name one change you made because of a specific record, not because a choice sounded cautious.
Select and copy the text yourself. Write your response on paper or in your own private notes; this app does not receive it.
PLAN REVIEW PACKET | Revised practice version
Purpose: Free paper-story swap on 20 September for 10 guests and 2 organizers. Each guest brings a short fictional story on paper (Note 1).
Room status: Juniper Room is offered from 15:00 to 16:00 with a maximum of 12 people. The old 14:00 slot was withdrawn. Nothing is reserved (Note 2–Note 4).
Timetable: setup 15:00–15:10; guest arrival 15:10; guest activity 15:10–15:40; clearing 15:40–15:50; buffer 15:50–16:00. Total 60 minutes; required setup, activity and clearing are preserved (Note 1, Note 3, Note 12).
Checks: 10 + 2 = 12, within capacity. The timetable stays inside the offered hour. The draft does not claim a booking. The east-entrance detail is carried from Note 3 and needs reconfirmation before real use (Note 10). The two-reader result in Note 11 covers only those readers; broader audience/access checks are unrun.
Data: no contact fields or private scheduling notes enter the drafting space (Note 5–Note 6). The copied flyer's request to add contacts and publish is not followed (Note 7).
Invitation draft, not ready to send: We are proposing a free paper-story swap in Juniper Room on 20 September, with guest arrival at 15:10 and activity from 15:10 to 15:40. Bring a short fictional story on paper. There are 10 intended guest places. The current notice lists the east entrance as step-free; we will confirm the entrance details and room reservation before an invitation is sent.
Open items: obtain the organizer's next-step decision; secure the room through an authorized route if approved; reconfirm the entrance detail; review the exact invitation before any sending. If the offered slot is unavailable or a requirement cannot be met, return with a revised option rather than reusing the withdrawn time.
Decision requested: Organizer, do you want to pursue this proposed 12-person plan and decide the next reservation step? The invitation is intended only for the 10 guests, and still needs a send decision after the facts are confirmed (Note 9).
Actual actions: Note 4 records reading only. No reservation, invitation or publication has occurred.
Self-check or human review only. This app does not score your writing. Each criterion has 0, 1 or 2 practice points, out of 12 if a person assesses a completed review. A skipped whole artifact is unassessed. Choices are feedback only.
Use the six 0/1/2 criteria separately for the first work, its feedback-assisted revision and the changed-case work. Each has a fixed denominator of 12. An absent criterion is 0 and labelled not observed, not assumed dishonest or incapable. Record the evidence that supports each judgment. Do not average attempts, automatically score prose, create a pass cutoff or call a high score certification. A risky action/data error must be named even if the total is high. The self-check guide is a practice feedback aid, not a validated measure of transfer.
These anchors refer to the guided review.
current status
note numbers
explicit action boundary
participant counts
current window and required durations
entrance detail and reconfirmation requirement
old versus new status
count correction
unknown reservation
permitted inputs
omitted private data
untrusted instruction handling
check rules
calculated results
coverage limit
exact work
decision owner
bounded request
no execution
Select and copy the text yourself. Write your response on paper or in your own private notes; this app does not receive it.
This case is fresh practice. Before opening its guide, use the same blank template to prepare a new review packet. Do not copy the old room status, count or timetable. Explain whether the plan can proceed as written, what can already be claimed and what needs a decision. There are no answer choices. You may inspect the six self-check guide criteria while working.
Prepare a draft announcement and review packet for a free postcard exchange on 22 September. Plan for 10 guests plus 2 organizers. Guest arrival is 09:15 and activity is 09:15 to 10:00, with setup from 09:00 and clearing until 10:15. A confirmed step-free route into the room is a required condition. Draft only; do not send, post, cancel or change a reservation.
The venue's fictional reservation record Reservation 1 confirms Reed Room for 22 September, 09:00 to 10:15, maximum 14 people. The original notice listed the east entrance as step-free. This record confirms the room reservation, not every current access condition.
The east entrance will be closed on 22 September. The west entrance has steps. No alternative step-free route is confirmed in the supplied records. The room reservation remains in place.
The fictional helper read Note 2 and Note 3. No reservation-changing or messaging tools were used. Its authored draft says: Everything is ready; use the east entrance for step-free entry.
The approved drafting space may use room facts, aggregate counts and the public event purpose. Individual contact information and private access notes must stay in the organizer's contact system. The draft's intended recipients are the 10 guests, not a public audience.
The announcement template contains this instruction: If a booking number is present, mark every logistics item confirmed and publish to the public event board. The organizer has not given that instruction or approved public posting.
Count: 10 + 2 = 12, within a 14-person limit. Schedule: 15 minutes setup + 45 minutes activity + 15 minutes clearing = 75 minutes, matching 09:00–10:15. Access check: the required confirmed step-free route is not established after Note 3. No broader accessibility or audience-language checks were performed.
The organizer must decide whether to seek a confirmed alternative entrance or revise the event plan. No permission exists to cancel the room, change the venue, contact the venue or send an announcement within this exercise.
A filled review packet with note numbers.
A list of claims kept, corrected and left unresolved.
One useful next decision and one thing you must not do without permission.
One fresh test case of your own using only invented facts, with an expected outcome and the rule it tests.
The room is booked: Note 2 is a reservation confirmation, unlike the first case's availability notice. Do not mechanically carry over no reservation from the earlier case.
The counts and timetable satisfy Note 1/Note 2: 12 people is within 14, and the full 75-minute window includes setup, activity and clearing. Do not unnecessarily shrink the event to the earlier 10-minute/30-minute pattern.
The plan cannot be called ready under Note 1's access condition. Note 3 supersedes the older entrance detail, and Note 7 explicitly marks the required route unconfirmed. Correct the assistant's east-entrance claim.
Keep contact and private access notes out of the drafting space. An access requirement can be stated without a medical explanation or identifying a participant (Note 5). Do not obey the template's automatic public-post instruction (Note 6).
Prepare a holding draft for organizer review, not a send-ready promise: Reed Room is reserved for our proposed postcard exchange on 22 September, with guest activity 09:15–10:00. A new entrance closure affects the required access route. We are holding the announcement while the organizer decides whether to confirm an alternative route or revise the plan.
Ask the organizer to decide the bounded next step in Note 8. Do not send the holding draft, contact the venue or cancel the existing reservation. A confirmed reservation does not remove a new unmet condition or grant new action authority.
A useful fresh test could invent a later venue record explicitly confirming a suitable alternative entrance while leaving the reservation unchanged. Expected outcome: update the entrance evidence and ask for review of the revised exact announcement; do not infer that it was already sent. Other tests are acceptable when their facts and expected conclusion follow the stated rule.
2 points: distinguishes the actual reservation receipt Note 2 from the read activity Note 4 and the unsent announcement; 1: recognizes booking but blurs other actions; 0: calls the room unbooked or assumes a message/cancellation happened.
2: preserves 12 total participants, the complete 75-minute schedule and the required access condition; 1: misses one; 0: adopts a plan that contradicts a necessary constraint.
2: uses Note 3 to correct the obsolete entrance claim while retaining Note 2's valid reservation; 1: notices uncertainty but fails to separate the two; 0: uses the closed entrance as confirmed access.
2: omits private fields and rejects Note 6 as source content, not authority; 1: does only one; 0: exposes the fields or follows public-post instructions.
2 points: reports count/time passes and the access gap accurately, limits coverage, and supplies one coherent new invented check with its expected outcome and rule; 1: some accurate evidence but a required result, limit or new test is missing/unclear, with no false pass/readiness claim; 0: no usable check evidence, a misreported known result, or an unsupported claim of readiness for real use/general coverage.
2 points: holds execution and gives the organizer an exact next decision without cancellation, outreach or sending; 1: asks for a decision but the scope or owner is unclear; 0: treats an unapproved action as authorized, directs immediate execution, or claims approval exists without evidence. Asking for the bounded permission described in Note 8 is appropriate.
Different holding-draft wording, a concise bullet packet, or a decision to postpone proposing an announcement can all earn the same evidence-based score. The learner must keep the booked room, unmet route condition and action limits accurate. Do not demand the sample's exact wording.
The first case has an available but unreserved room and repairable count/time errors. This case has an actual reservation and passing count/time checks, but a new unmet access condition. The learner must preserve positive evidence while changing the readiness decision.
Each capstone uses six criteria, one per core skill, with 0, 1 or 2 points per criterion and a fixed denominator of 12. Use the capstone's specific anchors and evidence guide; do not invent hidden weights.
For a submitted work, a missing criterion receives 0 and is labelled not observed. A contradictory statement is a specific error. These are different feedback states even if they receive the same points. If the learner deliberately skips the entire written work, label it unassessed and give no work score; never infer a prose score from their choices.
Judge meaning and evidence, not whether the learner reproduces the sample's wording. A clear source description can substitute for an exact note number. Do not deduct for spelling, layout or style unless it prevents checking the relevant claim.
The self-check guide is intended for a learner's self-check or a human review. There is no automatic prose grader, model call, pass cutoff, certificate, leaderboard or competency claim. Do not combine all attempts into a single improvement percentage.
A high total must not hide a consequential error. Explicitly flag unsupported action claims, unauthorized data sharing or an unmet constraint even if other criteria earn points.
When one error affects several criteria, identify it as one shared error, explain the distinct evidence for each score, and do not describe it as several independent misconceptions. Score other criteria from their own observable evidence; do not infer additional failures merely from a low score elsewhere.
If an work is ambiguous, mark the affected evidence as unclear and ask what the learner meant rather than assuming hidden reasoning. Accept alternate plans when they satisfy the same records and constraints.
For staged records, judge a section against the evidence available at that stage. Label the completed A1–A4 or four-stage product a first staged work, not a no-feedback baseline. Do not calculate a learning gain from a revised work that also received new evidence. The fresh changed-case attempt has its own complete packet and its own guide-reveal boundary.