Answers and explanations

Compare these references after your own attempt. They are illustrative answers, not records of a live assistant run. You may read them at any time.

Read after your attempt. These examples show acceptable reasoning and outputs; they are not the only correct wording.

Lesson pause answers

Lesson 1: A useful addition identifies the intended reader and result, for example “for the workshop coordinator to scan progress and unresolved items.” Private information unrelated to the task is unnecessary.
Lesson 2: “Draft a workshop progress update” is the task. The factual input begins after “Source notes” and ends at “End of source notes.” Headings make the boundary visible without special software.
Lesson 3: Replace “fill in any missing details” with “If a requested detail is absent from the notes, write ‘not provided’ and do not guess.” This produces a usable draft with a visible gap.
Lesson 4: “Exactly three bullets under 70 words” is easier to inspect than “concise.” Both still need a meaning check: meeting a word limit does not establish accuracy.

Guided practice Reference brief

Task: Draft an internal progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop. Audience and purpose: Help the coordinator scan progress and unresolved items before a meeting. Constraints: Use only G1 to G3. Keep the pending review and unconfirmed chair availability clear. Do not invent people, dates, reasons or promises. In the welcome-reader bullet, explicitly mark the reader and assignment deadline as "not provided". Format: Exactly three bullets, starting "Sign-in sheet:", "Chairs:" and "Welcome reader:" respectively. Keep the whole response under 80 words. End each bullet with its source label in square brackets. No introduction or conclusion. Checks: Compare the draft with each note and check the required labels, missing details and format before returning it.

Source notes — fictional exercise G1: The sign-in sheet draft is complete. Review is pending. G2: Twenty chairs have been requested. The venue has not confirmed how many chairs are available. G3: A welcome reader is needed. These notes do not name a reader or give a deadline for assigning one. End of source notes

Illustrative acceptable response:

Sign-in sheet: Draft complete; review pending. [G1]
Chairs: Twenty requested; available quantity unconfirmed. [G2]
Welcome reader: Needed; reader and assignment deadline not provided. [G3]

Why it works:

G1 separates completion of a draft from completion of review.
G2 distinguishes the number requested from the number confirmed as available.
G3 marks both absent details and does not appoint someone or invent a deadline.
There are three correctly labelled bullets, with no extra paragraph, well below 80 words.

Possible focused revision for the supplied offline example:

“Add this sentence to Constraints: ‘The welcome-reader bullet must include both the missing reader and the missing assignment deadline.’”

This targets the omitted deadline. The separate-bullet format also needs correction before accepting the final output. Because this is an offline example, describe the revised prompt as prepared, not proven successful.

If your live first attempt met all targets, an acceptable preference refinement is “Use simple complete sentences while keeping every other requirement.” Check whether the new response meets that preference and still preserves all facts. It may be less compact but more suitable for your reader.

Independent assignment Reference brief

Task: Draft a progress update for the fictional Willow Team workshop. Audience and purpose: The coordinator needs to see progress and unresolved details at a glance. Constraints: Use only I1 to I3. Preserve the unreviewed wording, missing venue reply and unapproved welcome length. Do not add facts or commitments. For the speaker, say "not provided"; do not infer whether anyone has been assigned. Format: Exactly three bullets beginning "Handout:", "Projector:" and "Welcome:" respectively. Use no more than 75 words in total. Put the matching source label in square brackets at the end of each bullet. No introduction or conclusion. Checks: Check every statement against the supplied notes and confirm the required format before returning the draft.

Source notes — fictional exercise I1: The handout layout is complete. The wording has not been reviewed. I2: A projector has been requested. The venue has not replied. I3: A ten-minute welcome has been proposed. Its length has not been approved. These notes do not name a speaker. End of source notes

Illustrative acceptable final output:

Handout: Layout complete; wording not reviewed. [I1]
Projector: Requested; venue reply pending. [I2]
Welcome: Ten-minute length proposed but unapproved; speaker not provided. [I3]

Common errors and focused corrections:

“Handout complete” loses the distinction between layout and wording review. Strengthen the instruction to preserve both states.
“Projector confirmed” contradicts the absence of a venue reply. Correct the output and reinforce the source-only rule.
“Speaker unassigned” goes beyond I3. Specify “not provided” rather than inferring assignment status.
A single paragraph with three topics does not meet a three-bullet format. State “put each topic in a separate bullet.”

Example change note, usable only if your saved outputs actually show this issue:

“My first response described the speaker as unassigned. I revised the missing-information instruction to require ‘not provided’ and prohibit an inference about assignment. The second response uses that wording. I checked that the unapproved length, pending reply and wording-review gap remain visible.”

If this was not your result, write the change note for what you actually observed. The aim is a truthful record of your revision.

Self-check answers

It leaves the task, reader, purpose and meaning of “better” unclear. Specify a result you can inspect, then provide the relevant source and boundaries.
“Use three bullets” is an instruction. “The room has been requested” is a source fact.
The notes tell you what information was supplied, not everything that may have happened. Absence of a name is not proof that no assignment exists.
Ask when the missing detail is necessary to define or complete the task, such as an unknown audience that changes what should be written. Mark a gap when a useful draft can safely preserve it as unresolved.
Add explicit label requirements to the brief. Acknowledge that the original prompt omitted your expectation rather than claiming the assistant ignored it.
Changing both the evidence and the instruction makes it harder to understand why the output changed. A stable source lets you inspect the effect of a focused revision more clearly.
No. Inspect the notes and response yourself. An AI self-check is another AI output, not independent verification.
No. The shorter version changes the meaning by hiding an unresolved approval. Restore the caveat, even if the response needs more words.
No. Record that it passed. You may add and test a clearly identified preference while checking that the original requirements still hold.

Recap and next step

A clear brief makes six things visible: task, audience and purpose, source, constraints, format and checks. Missing facts need an explicit treatment. Revisions are more useful when they address a named issue and are compared against stable criteria.

Keep both briefs, both responses and your change note. They show what you asked for, what happened and why you accepted the final result.

In Module 3, Work from supplied documents, you will use this briefing method with longer material. You will learn how to summarise, extract and rewrite while preserving conditions and making important statements traceable to their source.