Everyday AI · Module 7

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.

Example concise procedure

Purpose: Prepare a reviewable internal workshop bundle from one current fictional pack. The learner is the reviewer. This procedure produces drafts and does not authorise sending, booking or assigning real work.

1. Confirm that the pack is fictional, labelled and intended for this exercise. Stop before entry if it contains real confidential material or permission is unclear. Check that every required note is present and readable.
2. Identify the current pack and save it with the run name. Do not combine it with an earlier pack. If an essential page is absent, obtain it or explicitly narrow the output.
3. Copy the saved brief, replace its entire source placeholder with the current pack, and check that no old facts remain. Use the required update, three-action and draft-message formats.
4. Run the brief in an approved text chat. Save the exact prompt and first response, or clearly mark an offline review. Treat the response as a candidate draft.
5. Compare every action, owner, date, dependency and status with the current notes. Check the update and message for invented promises or lost caveats. Inspect lengths and required fields. Record at least five checks, including all due dates and the workshop’s proposed status.
6. Correct supported errors from the source. If a requested fact is missing, mark it “not provided.” If an unresolved conflict affects a conclusion, hold that conclusion rather than choosing a convenient answer. Stop any task that cannot be safely completed with labelled gaps.
7. Save the corrected bundle separately from the first response. Record unresolved items, corrections and actual timing if measured. Do not claim a time saving without a comparable baseline.
8. Record “accept as checked practice draft,” “revise” or “stop,” with the reason and reviewer. Acceptance requires supported claims and visible uncertainties. Any later operational use requires its own authorisation and appropriate review.

Run 1 Reference bundle

Illustrative update:

“The invitation draft is complete, with Leela’s review due 14 November 2026 and approval pending. Arun is seeking venue confirmation by 15 November. Mira’s handout review is due 16 November but blocked on wording approval. The wording-approval owner is not provided. The proposed workshop date is 21 November 2026; it is not confirmed.”

Reference action rows:

Illustrative message draft:

“Could you clarify who is responsible for the wording approval needed before Mira can review the handout? The current notes do not name an owner. This remains an unresolved point in the workshop update.”

Unresolved points: invitation approval, venue confirmation, wording approval and its owner, and final workshop-date confirmation.

Example five-check record:

1. Leela and the invitation deadline match R1.1: supported.
2. Arun and the venue deadline match R1.2: supported.
3. Mira and the handout deadline match R1.3: supported.
4. Handout review is blocked on wording approval in R1.3: supported.
5. The workshop date is proposed, not confirmed, in R1.4: supported.

The label “pending review” reflects that review is assigned and approval is pending; it does not claim the review has started. Missing dependencies must not be invented. Final decision: accept this illustrative bundle as a checked practice draft, with unresolved items visible. No sending is authorised.

Run 2 Reference changes

Illustrative update:

“The invitation draft is complete, with Leela’s review due 18 November 2026 and approval pending. Venue confirmation is needed by 15 November; its owner is not provided. Mira’s handout review is due 16 November but blocked on wording approval, whose owner is also not provided. The workshop date of 21 November 2026 remains proposed.”

Reference action rows:

Illustrative message draft:

“Could you clarify who is responsible for obtaining venue confirmation by 15 November 2026? The current pack does not name an owner, so I have marked the owner as not provided.”

The missing owner is a gap in the current source. Do not assert that nobody has been assigned in reality, or that Arun still owns the task.

Example comparison note:

“The second pack changed the invitation deadline from 14 to 18 November and omitted the venue-confirmation owner. My second bundle uses 18 November and ‘owner not provided.’ It keeps the handout dependency and the proposed workshop date. I checked those facts against R2.1 to R2.4.”

A complete Run 2 record also retains the other unresolved points from its own pack. It does not merely say “same as last time.”

Self-check answers

1. Keep the safety rules, instructions, output requirements and checks stable. Replace the source pack, source labels, facts and run record.
2. It omits input safety, evidence boundaries, output requirements, verification, stop conditions and permission to share.
3. A labelled unknown may remain when the permitted purpose is a draft that allows gaps. Stop when the missing owner is necessary for an operational assignment or when a safe result cannot be produced.
4. A label lets someone locate the evidence and inspect the relevant claim. The record should also explain whether the evidence supports it.
5. The second pack may change facts or omit information. The first output is not the evidence for the second run.
6. Include reading, preparing the brief, drafting, checking and correction. Record waiting separately if useful. A savings claim also needs a fair baseline.
7. No. Draft acceptance and authority to send are different decisions.
8. Compare with R2.1, correct the deadline to 18 November, record the stale-date error and inspect other fields for carry-over. Revise the procedure if it failed to replace the old pack clearly.

Recap and next step

A repeatable manual workflow preserves the method while replacing the evidence. Clear stop conditions and run records make the process reviewable, even when some information remains unknown.

In Module 8, Complete and review the capstone, you will use these skills on larger packs, a 12-row task register and an amendment. You will produce two reviewed bundles and assess them against the course rubric.

Return to the module practice