AI for Everyday Work and Prompting

Module 5 Create useful workplace writing

Aabha AI Academy · Codeless AI

A useful workplace message helps a particular reader understand something or take a clear next step. AI can help you shape the wording. It cannot give you new facts, permission to send, or authority to promise something on another person’s behalf.

In this module, you will turn one checked set of fictional workshop facts into three different forms of writing. You will change the emphasis and structure while keeping the facts, conditions and approved commitments intact.

What you will learn

By the end, you will be able to:

-   Specify a reader, purpose, tone and measurable length for a draft.
-   Adapt one checked fact set into an internal update, an email draft and a short frequently asked questions section, or FAQ.
-   Edit for clarity and accessibility without making uncertainty disappear.
-   Identify and remove overconfident wording and invented commitments.
-   Show the source for important claims and distinguish a reviewed draft from permission to send it.

Before you start

Complete Modules 1 to 4 first, or check that you can make a bounded brief, use source labels, preserve missing information and verify a claim against the passage that supports it. Keep your Module 4 checking method nearby.

Use an approved ordinary text-chat assistant and a document or notebook. Only the fictional material supplied here is needed. No paid feature, upload, connected account or programming is required. If a chat tool is unavailable, use the supplied example responses and write your own drafts, marking the work as offline practice.

Allow about 90 minutes: five lessons and demonstrations, 35 minutes; guided practice, 25 minutes; independent assignment, 20 minutes; self-check and answer review, 10 minutes. These are planning estimates, not measured completion times.

Continue the workshop scenario

You support the fictional Willow Team, which is preparing a community workshop. Each source pack is a separate labelled snapshot. Use only the pack named in the current exercise. A confirmed room in one snapshot does not resolve an unconfirmed room in another.

All people, dates, organisations and details are invented. The examples are illustrative teaching responses, not recorded live-tool results. Every message stays in your practice document. Do not create a real email draft, send a message or publish anything.

Lesson 1 Decide who needs what

Suggested time: 7 minutes.

Before asking for polished wording, make four decisions:

-   Reader: Who will read this, and what background do they have?
-   Purpose: What should they understand or be able to do after reading?
-   Tone: How should the wording sound while staying accurate?
-   Length: What limit and structure will make it usable?

For an internal update, the reader may know the workshop already and need progress, blockers and the next agreed step. An email draft may need one specific request. A volunteer FAQ should answer practical questions without assuming knowledge of internal shorthand.

Tone does not change the evidence. “Reassuring” may mean calm, concrete wording. It does not mean saying everything is confirmed. “Friendly” does not justify adding a promise to help. “Professional” does not require long words.

Worked snapshot W5

Use W5.1 to W5.5 for all lesson examples in this module:

-   W5.1: The venue has confirmed the Cedar Room for 12 June 2030, from 10:00 to 11:00. Projector availability is not confirmed.
-   W5.2: The handout draft is complete. Its wording review is pending.
-   W5.3: Coordinator Mira agreed to ask the venue about the projector by 8 June 2030. The notes do not promise a venue response by that date.
-   W5.4: Lee agreed to review the handout wording by 9 June 2030. Distribution has not been approved.
-   W5.5: The coordinator wants the draft update to identify the projector question and wording review. A practice email may ask Mira to confirm the projector position when a venue reply is available. No response deadline has been agreed.

Weak brief:

“Make a confident announcement that everything is ready.”

Better brief:

“Draft a calm internal progress update for the coordinator. Help them see what is confirmed, what remains open and the agreed next steps. Use W5.1 to W5.5 only. Use three short bullets, no more than 100 words, and retain source labels for review.”

The better brief describes usefulness without forcing a conclusion the notes cannot support.

Quick pause: For an email to Mira, which is the main purpose: announce that all equipment is ready, or request an update on the unresolved projector question? Explain using W5.1 and W5.5.

Lesson 2 Keep facts and commitments stable

Suggested time: 7 minutes.

A fact set is the collection of facts you will use for the draft. A checked fact set has been compared with its source. Checking still needs a visible record; a heading that says “verified” is not evidence by itself.

Before writing, create a short claim ledger. For each important fact, record the supporting source and any qualification that must travel with it.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Fact to use                                         Source passage                                                           Qualification to keep
  --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------
  Cedar Room confirmed for the stated date and time   W5.1: “confirmed the Cedar Room for 12 June 2030, from 10:00 to 11:00”   Projector availability is not confirmed

  Handout draft complete                              W5.2: “Its wording review is pending”                                    Complete draft does not mean approved for distribution

  Mira will ask about the projector by 8 June         W5.3: “agreed to ask the venue”                                          Asking is the commitment; receiving a reply is not

  Lee will review wording by 9 June                   W5.4: “agreed to review”                                                 Distribution has not been approved
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A commitment is something a person or team has agreed to do. Preserve its owner, action, timing and conditions. Changing any one of these can create a new promise.

Compare:

-   Unsupported: “Mira will confirm the projector by 8 June.”
-   Supported: “Mira agreed to ask the venue about the projector by 8 June; the response date is not promised. [W5.3]”

The first sentence changes an action within Mira’s control into an outcome that depends on the venue.

Compare:

-   Unsupported: “We will send the final handout on 9 June.”
-   Supported: “Lee agreed to review the wording by 9 June. Distribution is not approved. [W5.4]”

Review and distribution are separate actions. The assistant should not turn one into the other.

Words such as “will,” “guaranteed,” “ready,” “all,” and “confirmed” deserve attention. They are not always wrong, but they need supporting evidence. “Will review” can be appropriate when the person agreed to review; “will be approved” would add a different promise.

Quick pause: Is “The handout is ready” an adequate rewrite of W5.2? What meaning might a reader infer that the source does not establish?

Lesson 3 Adapt the form while keeping the meaning

Suggested time: 7 minutes.

Different forms can select and order facts differently. They must not contradict each other. A short draft may omit an irrelevant detail, but it must keep any condition needed to understand the detail it includes.

An internal update usually leads with status and what needs attention. An email draft names a recipient and focuses on one purpose or request. An FAQ uses questions a reader would reasonably ask, followed by direct answers.

Three drafts from worked snapshot W5

Internal update:

-   Room: Cedar Room is confirmed for 12 June 2030, 10:00 to 11:00. The projector is unconfirmed. [W5.1]
-   Handout: Draft complete; wording review pending and distribution unapproved. [W5.2, W5.4]
-   Next steps: Mira agreed to ask about the projector by 8 June. Lee agreed to review wording by 9 June. [W5.3, W5.4]

Email draft for review

Recipient: Mira, the fictional workshop coordinator. This routing note is outside the draft.

Subject: Projector status for the workshop

Hi Mira,

Cedar Room is confirmed for 12 June 2030, 10:00 to 11:00, but the projector is unconfirmed. [W5.1] You agreed to ask the venue about it by 8 June. [W5.3] Please confirm the projector position when a reply is available. [W5.5]

Thanks, Willow Team

FAQ draft for fictional volunteers:

Where and when is the workshop? Cedar Room is confirmed for 12 June 2030, from 10:00 to 11:00. [W5.1]

Will there be a projector? Projector availability is not confirmed. Mira agreed to ask the venue by 8 June; no response date is promised. [W5.1, W5.3]

Can we distribute the handout? Distribution has not been approved. The draft is complete, and Lee agreed to review its wording by 9 June. [W5.2, W5.4]

These forms have different jobs. The email does not need to repeat every handout detail because its purpose is the projector question. It does need to keep the projector uncertainty. None of the drafts says that a message was sent.

One fact set three useful forms

[A checked fact set branches into an internal update, an email draft and an FAQ. Each carries the same facts, conditions and approved commitments, then passes a human check before being saved as a practice draft.]

Text equivalent of the diagram

1.  Start with a checked fact set. Each claim has a source, any uncertainty and only the commitments people actually approved.
2.  For an internal update, select status, unresolved items and agreed next steps.
3.  For an email draft, select context needed by the named recipient and one clear request.
4.  For an FAQ, select likely questions and answer only what the evidence supports; state gaps openly.
5.  Check all three against the same fact set. Facts, uncertainty and approved commitments stay consistent even when tone, order and length change.
6.  Save the reviewed practice drafts. Drafting and reviewing do not authorise sending or publishing.

Lesson 4 Edit for clarity and accessibility

Suggested time: 7 minutes.

Clear writing reduces the work a reader must do. Begin with the information that serves the purpose. Use familiar words, short paragraphs and specific labels. Name the person or item when a pronoun could be ambiguous.

Practical edits include:

-   Replace “utilise” with “use” when the meaning is the same.
-   Expand an unfamiliar abbreviation the first time, or remove it.
-   Split a sentence that mixes several unrelated topics.
-   State a date in words, such as “8 June 2030,” rather than an ambiguous numerical form.
-   Use meaningful link text if a real source link is supplied. Do not invent links.
-   Do not rely on colour, icons or bold text alone to communicate “pending” or “approved.” Write the status in words.

Plain language should preserve distinctions. You may simplify “pending formal authorisation for dissemination” to “not approved for distribution.” Simplifying it to “ready” would change the meaning.

Worked editing example

Overloaded draft:

“Following the completion of the aforementioned handout deliverable, distribution will be actioned by 9 June, with all review requirements therefore considered resolved.”

This is wordy and unsupported. W5.2 says review is pending; W5.4 promises a review, not distribution.

Clear, faithful revision:

“The handout draft is complete. Lee agreed to review the wording by 9 June. Distribution has not been approved. [W5.2, W5.4]”

For an even shorter update:

“Handout: Draft complete; wording review due from Lee by 9 June. Distribution is not approved. [W5.2, W5.4]”

Either can work for the intended reader. The first uses fuller sentences; the second is compact for scanning. Neither claims that plain wording makes the document universally accessible. Readers may have other needs that require separate checks.

Copyable editing prompt

    Edit the draft below for a reader who is new to this workshop. Use everyday words and short sentences. Keep all dates, facts, uncertainty, owners and approved commitments unchanged. Remove any unsupported promise and explain its correction below the revised draft. Do not invent a replacement deadline. Keep source labels for review. This is a fictional practice draft only; do not send or publish it.

    Source notes — worked snapshot W5
    W5.1: The venue has confirmed the Cedar Room for 12 June 2030, from 10:00 to 11:00. Projector availability is not confirmed.
    W5.2: The handout draft is complete. Its wording review is pending.
    W5.3: Coordinator Mira agreed to ask the venue about the projector by 8 June 2030. The notes do not promise a venue response by that date.
    W5.4: Lee agreed to review the handout wording by 9 June 2030. Distribution has not been approved.
    W5.5: The coordinator wants the draft update to identify the projector question and wording review. A practice email may ask Mira to confirm the projector position when a venue reply is available. No response deadline has been agreed.
    End of source notes

    Draft to edit
    The handout is ready, and we will send it by 9 June. The room and all equipment are confirmed.
    End of draft

The “draft to edit” is an object of review, not an additional trusted source. Compare the assistant’s revision with W5.1 to W5.5 yourself.

Lesson 5 Check the draft before accepting it

Suggested time: 7 minutes.

Use two passes. First check meaning. Then check presentation. A well-formatted draft with an invented deadline still needs correction.

Meaning pass

For every factual sentence, point to the supporting source passage. Ask:

1.  Does it preserve the relevant date, quantity, owner and condition?
2.  Does it imply that an unresolved issue is settled?
3.  Does it promise an action or outcome nobody approved?
4.  Is the request within the stated purpose of this practice draft?
5.  Do the update, email and FAQ agree with each other?

Presentation pass

Check the named reader, purpose, tone, structure and length. Remove duplicated context before removing a necessary caveat. If the limit is too small for essential meaning, flag that conflict rather than silently deleting a condition.

For the practice below, count every whitespace-separated word in the draft itself. Count the email subject, greeting, sign-off and source markers. Exclude the separate recipient routing note and your review record. A source marker such as “[G5.1]” counts as one word under this convention. This is a course checking convention; your editor’s counter may handle punctuation differently. Leave a comfortable margin below the limit.

Keep source labels in your practice drafts. In real workplace writing, references might instead sit in a review note if the format requires that, but the human reviewer still needs a traceable record. Never remove the only record of where a claim came from.

Copyable review prompt

    Check these fictional practice drafts against the supplied source notes. For each draft, identify any unsupported fact, removed caveat, changed commitment or unclear request. Quote the relevant draft words and the supporting source passage, or say that no support is present. Also check the stated word limit using the counting convention I provide. Suggest corrections without sending or publishing anything.

To use this template, append the complete current source pack, drafts and word-count convention. AI can help find issues, but you still inspect the source and count yourself.

Quick pause: The AI says, “All checks passed.” What evidence must you inspect before accepting that judgement?

Guided practice Write three forms from one checked fact set

Suggested time: 25 minutes.

Guided snapshot G5

Use only these notes for this exercise:

-   G5.1: The workshop is proposed for 22 May 2030, from 14:00 to 15:00. The venue has received the room request but has not confirmed availability.
-   G5.2: The handout draft is complete. Its accessibility review is pending. Distribution has not been approved.
-   G5.3: Coordinator Jo agreed to ask the venue for a room update by 19 May 2030. No venue response date is promised.
-   G5.4: Dev agreed to review the handout for accessibility by 20 May 2030. The notes do not guarantee approval after that review.
-   G5.5: Invitation review should wait until the venue’s answer is available. The coordinator has asked for a practice email requesting a decision on invitation review once that answer is available. No response deadline has been set.
-   G5.6: These notes do not provide a workshop fee or an available-seat count.

Part A Make and check the fact set

Spend about 5 minutes.

Make a claim ledger with four entries: proposed schedule and room status; handout status; Jo’s commitment; Dev’s commitment. Add the G5 source labels and copy the key supporting words. Record the invitation-review condition and the fee and seat-count gaps beneath the ledger.

Check the ledger against the original notes. This prevents a misleading summary from becoming the shared basis for all three drafts.

Part B Draft for three readers

Spend about 9 minutes.

Write and run a complete prompt that produces:

1.  An internal update for the coordinator, no more than 120 words. Include progress, unresolved items and the two agreed next steps.
2.  An email draft to Jo, no more than 90 words including its subject, greeting, sign-off and references. Ask for the invitation-review decision once the venue answer is available. Keep the proposed schedule and room uncertainty clear.
3.  A three-question FAQ for fictional volunteers: “When is the workshop?”, “Can the handout be distributed?” and “How much does it cost?” Keep each answer to two short sentences at most. Preserve gaps; do not infer a free event from a missing fee.

Keep source labels in all three outputs. Use a calm, direct tone. Save the exact prompt and the initial response. No draft is sent.

Copyable starter prompt:

    Task: Create three practice drafts for the fictional Willow Team using only guided snapshot G5.
    Readers and purposes: The coordinator needs an internal progress update; Jo needs a focused request about invitation review; volunteers need answers to practical questions.
    Constraints: Preserve proposed dates, pending confirmation and review, and unapproved distribution. Include only the commitments actually agreed. Do not promise replies or approvals. Treat missing information as not provided. Keep source labels in the drafts. Draft only; do not send or publish.
    Format: (1) Internal update, at most 120 words, covering progress, open items and agreed next steps. (2) Email draft to Jo, at most 90 words including subject, greeting, sign-off and references, asking for a decision on invitation review once the venue answer is available. (3) FAQ with exactly these three questions: When is the workshop? Can the handout be distributed? How much does it cost? Each answer has at most two short sentences.
    Checks: Check every claim against its source. Count whitespace-separated words in each draft, including source markers. Exclude the recipient routing note and review record. Explain any remaining uncertainty outside the drafts.

    Source notes — guided snapshot G5
    [Paste G5.1 to G5.6 here unchanged before using this prompt.]
    End of source notes

Replace the source placeholder before running the prompt. The completed prompt you save must contain all six notes.

Part C Correct two specific problems

Spend about 6 minutes.

Whether or not your live output has errors, inspect these two supplied bad sentences:

-   Overconfident sentence: “The workshop is confirmed for 22 May, and everything is ready.”
-   Invented commitment: “We will email the approved handout to everyone by 20 May.”

For each, record what is wrong, the relevant source passages and a faithful replacement. Do not claim these errors appeared in your live response unless they did.

Then review your actual three drafts. Check every claim, retain any needed corrections and count the update and email words. If a draft is too long, shorten repetition rather than removing the venue or review caveat.

Part D Save an evidence record

Spend about 5 minutes.

Save your final three drafts, the checked ledger, the two sentence repairs and this review record:

    Update word count:
    Email word count:
    One claim checked, with source passage:
    One commitment checked, with source passage:
    Caveats consistent across all three drafts: yes / correction needed
    Request matches G5.5: yes / correction needed
    Final decision: accept as practice drafts / revise
    Live run or offline practice:

Offline route: write the three drafts yourself, or review the guided reference drafts after making your own attempt. Make the same checks. State that the supplied error sentences and reference drafts were illustrative examples, not your observed AI outputs.

Independent assignment Prepare a second writing set

Suggested time: 20 minutes.

Independent snapshot I5

This is a different exercise. Do not carry G5 facts into it.

-   I5.1: The venue has confirmed the Birch Room for 18 September 2030, from 09:30 to 10:30. Step-free access to the room has not been confirmed.
-   I5.2: The welcome script draft is complete. Its plain-language review is pending. Use of the script at the workshop has not been approved.
-   I5.3: Coordinator Nia agreed to ask the venue about step-free access by 12 September 2030. No venue response date is promised.
-   I5.4: Arun agreed to review the script for plain language by 13 September 2030. No approval outcome is guaranteed.
-   I5.5: The coordinator requests a practice email asking for a decision on the attendee-information draft once the access answer is available. No decision deadline is supplied.
-   I5.6: The notes do not provide a materials charge or a refreshment plan.

Your task

Build and check a short fact ledger, then write your own complete prompt. Produce:

-   An internal coordinator update of no more than 120 words, including room and access status, script status and both agreed next steps.
-   An email draft to Nia of no more than 90 words, including subject, greeting, sign-off and references. Request the attendee-information decision once the access answer is available.
-   A three-question FAQ for fictional volunteers: “Where and when is the workshop?”, “Is step-free access confirmed?” and “Is there a materials charge?” Use at most two short sentences per answer.

Use only I5.1 to I5.6, keep source labels and follow the same counting convention. Choose a clear, calm tone for readers who may not know the team’s internal shorthand.

Also repair these two supplied sentences and explain each repair:

1.  “The venue is fully accessible and everything is approved.”
2.  “We will send the final script to all volunteers on 13 September.”

Save the prompt, initial response or offline first draft, your checked final drafts, word counts, sentence repairs and a review decision. If you manually edit the response, label the edited copy rather than replacing the original. Nothing is sent or published.

Formative self-assessment rubric

Mark each criterion “met” or “needs correction.” There is no separate numerical pass score.

-   Reader and purpose: Each form has an identifiable audience and serves the stated purpose. The email has one clear, authorised request.
-   Shared evidence: All three drafts use I5 only. Important claims are traceable to the right passage, not merely to a plausible-looking label.
-   Meaning preserved: Room confirmation, unconfirmed access, pending script review and unapproved use remain distinct. No missing fee is invented.
-   Commitments preserved: Only Nia’s enquiry and Arun’s review are promised, with their supplied deadlines. No response, approval, sending or distribution promise is added.
-   Clarity and limits: The writing uses understandable wording; the update and email meet their word limits; FAQ answers meet the sentence limits.
-   Visible review: Both bad sentences are repaired with reasons, actual draft changes are recorded honestly, and the final accept-or-revise decision is visible.
-   Safe completion: Only fictional information is used, and the work remains in the practice document.

Correct an accuracy, permission or accessibility-meaning gap before marking the work complete. A shorter message is not a better message if it hides a condition the reader needs.

Self-check Before reading the answers

Spend about 5 minutes answering, then 5 minutes reviewing the solutions.

1.  Which four decisions should you make before asking for a workplace draft?
2.  Does a request for a “confident tone” authorise turning “proposed” into “confirmed”?
3.  What is the difference between a commitment to ask a venue by a date and a commitment to obtain a reply by that date?
4.  Must an email repeat every fact in the internal update? What must remain consistent?
5.  Why is “There is no fee” unsupported when the notes provide no fee?
6.  Give one clarity edit that preserves meaning, and one shortening that would change meaning.
7.  For this module, does the email’s word limit include the subject and references?
8.  The assistant says its draft passed every check. What should you do before accepting it?
9.  Does approving a practice draft mean the assistant may send it?

Answers and explanations

Read this section after making your attempt. The reference wording is one acceptable solution; equivalent faithful writing is welcome.

Lesson pause answers

-   Lesson 1: Request an update on the projector. W5.1 explicitly leaves it unconfirmed, and W5.5 permits that request when a reply is available. Neither supports announcing ready equipment.
-   Lesson 2: “Ready” can imply the handout has passed review or can be distributed. W5.2 says wording review is pending, and W5.4 says distribution is unapproved. Keep those distinctions.
-   Lesson 5: Inspect the actual draft, its source passages, commitments, format and word count. The assistant’s assurance is not a substitute for evidence.

Guided practice Reference fact ledger

-   Proposed schedule and room: G5.1 says “proposed for 22 May 2030, from 14:00 to 15:00” and “has not confirmed availability.” The date and both times belong to a proposal, not a confirmed booking.
-   Handout: G5.2 says “draft is complete,” “accessibility review is pending” and “Distribution has not been approved.” All three can be true at once.
-   Jo’s action: G5.3 says “agreed to ask the venue … by 19 May 2030.” That date applies to the enquiry, with no promised response date.
-   Dev’s action: G5.4 says “agreed to review … by 20 May 2030.” That date applies to review, with no guaranteed approval.
-   Invitation condition: G5.5 requires waiting for the venue answer before invitation review and permits a request for the coordinator’s decision then. It supplies no response deadline.
-   Missing details: G5.6 provides neither a fee nor an available-seat count. Do not replace either gap with zero, “free,” or an estimate.

Guided practice Reference drafts

Internal update:

-   Schedule: Proposed for 22 May 2030, 14:00 to 15:00. Room availability is unconfirmed. [G5.1]
-   Handout: Draft complete; accessibility review pending and distribution unapproved. [G5.2]
-   Next steps: Jo agreed to ask the venue by 19 May; Dev agreed to review the handout by 20 May. Neither a venue response date nor review approval is promised. [G5.3, G5.4]
-   Invitation review should wait for the venue answer. [G5.5]

Email draft for review

Recipient: Jo, the fictional workshop coordinator. This routing note is outside the draft.

Subject: Invitation review decision

Hi Jo,

The workshop is proposed for 22 May 2030, 14:00 to 15:00; the room is unconfirmed. [G5.1] You agreed to ask the venue by 19 May. [G5.3] Once its answer is available, please decide whether invitation review can proceed. [G5.5]

Thanks, Willow Team

FAQ draft:

When is the workshop? It is proposed for 22 May 2030, from 14:00 to 15:00. Room availability is not confirmed. [G5.1]

Can the handout be distributed? Distribution has not been approved. The draft is complete, but accessibility review is pending. [G5.2]

How much does it cost? The workshop fee is not provided in these notes. [G5.6]

Why these work:

-   G5.1 supplies every schedule number; “proposed” and the room gap remain beside those numbers.
-   G5.2 supports all three handout states. The FAQ does not promise a copy after review.
-   The internal update preserves G5.3 and G5.4’s two agreed actions and their deadlines. A note about uncertain outcomes stops those actions being read as guaranteed results.
-   G5.5 supplies the email’s next step and its condition. The request creates no new deadline.
-   G5.6 supports a missing fee statement, not a price.
-   The internal update and email are comfortably within 120 and 90 words respectively under the stated convention. Count your own drafts; different wording changes the totals.

Guided practice Two sentence repairs

Overconfidence repair:

“The workshop is proposed for 22 May 2030, from 14:00 to 15:00. The room is not confirmed, and the handout’s accessibility review is pending. [G5.1, G5.2]”

“Confirmed” contradicted G5.1. “Everything is ready” hid the unconfirmed room and pending review. The repair states the actual status instead of replacing one broad claim with another.

Invented-commitment repair:

“Dev agreed to review the handout for accessibility by 20 May 2030. Distribution has not been approved. [G5.2, G5.4]”

The source contains a review commitment, not permission or a promise to email anyone. The date remains attached to review. The word “approved” cannot be inferred from completion of a draft or a future review.

Independent assignment Reference drafts

Internal update:

-   Room: Birch Room is confirmed for 18 September 2030, 09:30 to 10:30. Step-free access is unconfirmed. [I5.1]
-   Script: Draft complete; plain-language review pending and workshop use unapproved. [I5.2]
-   Next steps: Nia agreed to ask about access by 12 September; Arun agreed to review the script by 13 September. No reply date or approval outcome is promised. [I5.3, I5.4]
-   The attendee-information decision is requested once the access answer is available. [I5.5]

Email draft for review

Recipient: Nia, the fictional workshop coordinator. This routing note is outside the draft.

Subject: Attendee information decision

Hi Nia,

Birch Room is confirmed for 18 September 2030, 09:30 to 10:30. Step-free access remains unconfirmed. [I5.1] You agreed to ask the venue about access by 12 September. [I5.3] Once the answer is available, please decide how to proceed with the attendee-information draft. [I5.5]

Thanks, Willow Team

FAQ draft:

Where and when is the workshop? Birch Room is confirmed for 18 September 2030, from 09:30 to 10:30. [I5.1]

Is step-free access confirmed? No; it has not been confirmed. Nia agreed to ask the venue by 12 September, but no response date is promised. [I5.1, I5.3]

Is there a materials charge? The notes do not provide a materials charge. [I5.6]

Evidence and numbers:

-   I5.1 supplies the room, event date and both times. Its room confirmation does not also confirm access. The separate access answer makes that limit visible in the FAQ.
-   I5.2 supplies draft completion, pending review and lack of use approval. No draft claims that the script is final.
-   I5.3 supplies Nia’s enquiry and the 12 September deadline; I5.4 supplies Arun’s review and the 13 September deadline. Both dates concern actions, not guaranteed outcomes.
-   I5.5 supplies the conditional next step and contains no decision deadline. The email asks rather than claiming the decision has already been made.
-   I5.6 supplies the charge gap. Refreshments are not needed by the requested FAQ, so omission is appropriate; inventing refreshments would not be.
-   The reference update and email fit the 120-word and 90-word limits. The source contains no word counts; those limits are assignment requirements, checked against the drafts.

Acceptable repairs:

1.  “Birch Room is confirmed, but step-free access is not confirmed. The script’s plain-language review is pending, and use is unapproved. [I5.1, I5.2]” “Fully accessible” was broader than the specific unanswered access question, and “everything is approved” contradicted the script notes.
2.  “Arun agreed to review the script for plain language by 13 September 2030. Use of the script has not been approved. [I5.2, I5.4]” The date applies to a review. No note authorises sending, identifies recipients for a send, or guarantees a final script.

A useful review record quotes at least one supporting passage, records your actual word counts and explains any correction you made. Do not invent an observed prompt failure or successful live revision.

Self-check answers

1.  Reader, purpose, tone and length. These guide useful presentation; the source and boundaries still determine what can be said.
2.  No. Confidence in delivery cannot change the status of a fact. Use calm, direct wording and keep “proposed.”
3.  Asking is an action the named person agreed to take. Receiving a reply depends on someone else; it needs separate support before it can be promised.
4.  No. Select facts relevant to the email’s purpose. All included facts, conditions and commitments must remain consistent with the shared evidence and other drafts.
5.  Missing information is not evidence of a zero price. State that the fee is not provided.
6.  “Utilise” to “use” can preserve meaning. “Review pending” to “ready” changes it by hiding an unresolved step.
7.  Yes. Count the subject, greeting, sign-off and references, but not the separate routing note or review record.
8.  Compare claims with source passages, inspect commitments and caveats, and check format and length yourself. Revise anything unsupported.
9.  No. This exercise authorises drafting and review only. Sending or publishing is a separate action requiring the appropriate permission.

Recap and next step

A useful draft serves a reader without changing the evidence. Adapt the order, emphasis and tone; carry the necessary conditions and approved commitments with the facts. Check meaning first, then clarity and length.

Keep the three drafts and your evidence record. In Module 6, Organise actions and simple data, you will turn notes into a task register, preserve original values while proposing corrections, and make a count someone else can reproduce.
