Everyday AI · Module 7

Build and run the procedure

Suggested time: 30 minutes.

Complete source pack for Run 1

Fictional snapshot dated 11 November 2026. These labels apply only to Run 1.

• R1.1: The invitation draft is complete. Leela is assigned to review it by 14 November 2026. The invitation must not be distributed before review approval. Review has not started and approval is pending.
• R1.2: Arun is assigned to obtain venue confirmation by 15 November 2026. The room request has been sent, but no confirmation has been received. The action is in progress.
• R1.3: Mira is assigned to review the handout by 16 November 2026. Review is blocked until the wording is approved. Wording approval is pending. No separate owner for wording approval is provided in this pack.
• R1.4: The workshop date of 21 November 2026 is proposed, not confirmed. The coordinator wants a practice update, three action rows and a draft question. Nothing is to be sent.

Part A Write your procedure

Spend about 10 minutes. Use the five saved parts from Lesson 3. Your concise procedure must state:

• What current input is required.
• What to do before entering it into the assistant.
• What to replace in the brief.
• Which outputs to save.
• Which factual and format checks to perform.
• What to do with missing or conflicting details.
• Who makes the final decision and what that decision permits.

Include at least one stop condition before drafting and one before accepting the output.

Part B Run and inspect Pack 1

Spend about 15 minutes. Use the reusable brief with R1.1 to R1.4. Save the response and check all three action rows against their notes. For the invitation row, “not provided” is acceptable for a dependency because none is stated for carrying out the review itself. The rule against distributing before approval is a later-use restriction, not a prerequisite for reviewing the draft.

Check at least five material claims, including every due date and the proposed workshop status. Preserve the handout dependency. Correct unsupported details before accepting the practice draft.

Part C Write the run record

Spend about 5 minutes. Record what you actually checked, what you changed and what remains unresolved. The wording-approval owner is missing; your procedure must not invent one.

Offline route: inspect the reference Run 1 bundle in the answers after writing your procedure. Record that you reviewed a supplied bundle and did not perform a live model run. Save the brief for a later tool test.

Independent assignment Test the changed pack

Suggested time: 20 minutes.

Complete source pack for Run 2

Fictional snapshot dated 12 November 2026. These labels apply only to Run 2 and replace Run 1 for this run.

• R2.1: The invitation draft is complete. Leela is assigned to review it by 18 November 2026. The invitation must not be distributed before review approval. Review has not started and approval is pending.
• R2.2: Venue confirmation is still needed by 15 November 2026. The room request has been sent, but no confirmation has been received. The action is in progress. This pack does not name its owner.
• R2.3: Mira is assigned to review the handout by 16 November 2026. Review is blocked until the wording is approved. Wording approval is pending. No separate owner for wording approval is provided in this pack.
• R2.4: The workshop date of 21 November 2026 is proposed, not confirmed. The coordinator wants a practice update, three action rows and a draft question. Nothing is to be sent.

Your task

Run the same procedure with only R2.1 to R2.4. Save a second bundle and run record. Explicitly check:

• Did 18 November replace 14 November for invitation review?
• Is the venue-confirmation owner marked “not provided,” with no carry-over of Arun?
• Does the handout review remain blocked on wording approval?
• Does the workshop date remain proposed?

Keep the facts that are unchanged, too. A changed-input test is not an instruction to rewrite every detail.

Hand in your concise procedure, both briefs, both initial responses or clearly marked offline equivalents, both final bundles, both run records and a short comparison note. If the procedure needs improvement after testing, save the change and explain which observed problem it addresses.

Why this assignment matters

The second run shows whether someone can reuse your method without quietly reusing old evidence. Explicit unknowns are acceptable in this practice draft; invented certainty is not.

Formative self-assessment rubric

Mark each criterion “met” or “needs correction.”

• The procedure has an input, ordered steps, a reusable brief, output requirements and a human reviewer.
• Safety and evidence stop conditions are explicit.
• Both source packs are used in separate runs and both records identify the correct current pack.
• Dates, owners, dependencies and proposal status are supported; unresolved items remain visible.
• Run 2 preserves the new invitation deadline and does not import the old venue owner.
• Checks and corrections are inspectable; any timing or live-run claim is honest.
• The final decision accepts only a practice draft, requires revision or stops; no real-world sending is implied.

Correct factual or privacy gaps before considering the work complete. Revisit only the steps responsible for a failure, then recheck the affected output.

Self-check Before reading the answers

Allow 5 minutes for your answers and 5 minutes for review.

1. Which parts of the workflow stay stable, and which must change each run?
2. Why is “ask AI, then share the result” an incomplete procedure?
3. When may an unknown owner remain in a checked draft, and when should work stop?
4. What does a source label add to a verification record?
5. Why must Run 2 be checked against its own pack?
6. What would you include when measuring total work time?
7. Does accepting a practice draft authorise sending its message?
8. If the second output uses 14 November for invitation review, what should you do?

Read the separate answers and explanations