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 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:
- “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.
- “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
- Reader, purpose, tone and length. These guide useful presentation; the source and boundaries still determine what can be said.
- No. Confidence in delivery cannot change the status of a fact. Use calm, direct wording and keep “proposed.”
- 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.
- 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.
- Missing information is not evidence of a zero price. State that the fee is not provided.
- “Utilise” to “use” can preserve meaning. “Review pending” to “ready” changes it by hiding an unresolved step.
- Yes. Count the subject, greeting, sign-off and references, but not the separate routing note or review record.
- Compare claims with source passages, inspect commitments and caveats, and check format and length yourself. Revise anything unsupported.
- 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.