Answers and explanations · Choose the job and its boundaries

Module 1 Reference solution

A strong contract limits the assistant to one reviewable equipment request. It identifies required inputs and the effective approved source, preserves request identity and states that the reviewer owns later communication and booking. It excludes stock promises, exception approval and real personal information. Observable stops include missing duration, invalid numeric value, unsupported item, contradictory policy and a request to bypass instructions.

Mechanisms: extracting “three days” may use AI or a form's numeric field; comparing 3 with the speaker limit is deterministic; exception approval is human; preserving an ID is a mapping operation; drafting an explanation can use AI or a template. Giving a fixed numeric comparison to a model creates avoidable uncertainty.

Extensions require separate design. Sending needs an approved recipient and content, an authenticated sender, exact-draft approval and delivery/retry controls. Inventory needs an authoritative, current source with permitted access and a way to handle stale or missing stock. Exception records need defined ownership, fields, audience, retention and access. None is authorised just because the initial draft is useful.

M1 Q1: the reservation statement exceeds authority and invents availability or a completed action. Correct policy facts do not justify it. Replace it with an awaiting-review draft. M1 Q2: no. A within-limit request is eligible for a standard draft. The course still requires review and has no booking action. M1 Q3: omit the phone number because it has no defined purpose in the current workflow. A future addition would need a specific use, data owner/permission decision, recipient/access assessment and retention plan, not speculation.

Common mistake: a scope saying “answer questions safely” without identifying the output, owner or specific stops. Improve it until another person can run the same acceptance tests.