FDE production walkthrough: partner rehearsal

Use this eight-minute route for an initial partner conversation. It follows the current homepage into one course, without changing accounts, opening cohort setup or switching to a sample-persona environment. Before the meeting, confirm your existing account opens Build with Claude Code. Use Continue with LockedIn Labs on sign-in when offered, and your existing LockedIn Labs account. Do not share a password or create a separate demo login.

0–1 minute — Start with the product

Click: Open the production homepage. Scroll to Learn the way you'll work and its Claude Code course preview.

Say: “LockedIn FDE is an engineering academy for turning AI tools into delivery capability. Here is the actual course interface we'll use.”

1–2 minutes — Open one connected course

Click: Select Open the learning workspace. In the first lesson, point to the six-lesson course path and Download starter project.

Say: “One small project connects repository orientation, context, implementation, debugging, permissions and handoff. The supplied application runs locally without an API key.”

2–3 minutes — Show why the first failure matters

Click: Select 02 Example. Show the foreign-tenant ticket and the explanation of the failing assertion.

Say: “A convincing draft is still the wrong result when the request is outside the allowed tenant. Learners explain the failed decision before repairing it.”

3–5 minutes — Make your own attempt

Click: Select 03 Practice. Write your own short baseline note in Your code, decision or evidence notes, then select Review your attempt.

Say: “This is my presenter-authored attempt. The workspace keeps the reasoning alongside the exercise; running the downloaded code is a separate local action.”

5–6 minutes — Explain the feedback

Click: In Review, answer both knowledge checks and select Check my understanding. Read the feedback and compare your note with the authored reference.

Say: “Feedback explains the decision. This self-check does not execute the patch or independently certify the learner.”

6–7 minutes — Save and continue the same work

Click: Select Save copy to playbook once. After confirmed success, select Reopen saved practice, then Continue saved practice if offered.

Say: “This is the same account's saved working copy, restored for further practice.”

7–8 minutes — Give the partner a receiving decision

Click: Ask the partner the receiving question below. End on the course path.

Say: “Which evidence would your delivery lead need before letting an engineer take the next bounded task?”

For the first attempt, describe what you actually inspected: the policy's scope, the expected blocked outcome, the observed result if you ran it, and the next question. If you did not execute the project, write not run and state your prediction instead. Keep the original note when you revise it. A supplied reference or a presenter's note is not a student result.

Receiving question: “Suppose the repair blocks every ticket and the foreign-tenant test now passes. What else must the engineer show?” Give the partner time to answer before discussing a same-tenant, allowed-category ticket that should still produce a human-reviewed draft. The useful comparison retains both the denial case and legitimate work. Ask what a changed requirement would invalidate in the earlier test evidence; a passing result belongs to the code and cases actually checked.

Record one concrete objection, the evidence it calls for and who would review it. If a save is unconfirmed, follow Check your playbook before trying another save; retain Download practice as a fallback. If course access is unavailable, stop at the public preview and agree a separate authenticated follow-up. Keep cohort operations and broader technical branches for a second conversation.

• Choose one route below before the meeting. For a production walkthrough, open the canonical site and the authorized course, then confirm the actions you intend to show are available. If hosting or access is unavailable, reschedule that walkthrough or agree to a clearly labeled local rehearsal. A recording or local server is not evidence that production is currently available.
• Open the public formation pathway and its free learning kit. Sign in using your existing authorized Academy account for protected instruction; do not enable demo authentication or share credentials. Confirm the account can open the course before the meeting.
• Have the workbook, starter, output-contract lab, and incident trace ready in one local practice folder. Use Node.js 24. No package installation, provider key or external data is needed for these two programs.
• Select a learner-authored packet you are authorized to show, or prepare your own synthetic presenter sample. Label that sample clearly. Have the original attempt and a specific revision side by side; a supplied worked example is not evidence that a learner completed the work.
• Choose a presenter, a receiving operator and an observer. One person may play all roles for self-rehearsal, but record that accurately. The receiver should get the runbook before the session. Give the observer a copy of the observation sheet below. Close unrelated tabs and keep private information off screen.
• Run the commands once locally and retain their exact outputs with the file revision and time. Keep an explicitly labeled recorded fallback if needed. Check the protected lesson and free downloads, then stop rehearsing setup.

Select the route against a question supplied by the audience. Use five minutes afterward for a technical branch rather than compressing every route into one presentation. Record whether the source is the hosted application, a local program, a supplied example or the presenter's own writing. Do not switch those labels when an expected result fails to appear.

Use this route when the audience wants to see the hosted learning product. The local code demonstration below is a separate route; do not fit both into ten minutes. Use the meeting account's existing access and describe its actual role. The application and persistence are real; your practice case is synthetic.

Keep the original attempt, actual question and your evidence check in your own practice notes. The coach conversation is temporary; do not promise that saving practice stores the entire chat. Use the workbook's twenty-minute exercise for the full learning session; this shorter route demonstrates the workflow only. If the coach stalls, retain the attempt and use a labeled peer question. Do not simulate a live response, resend repeatedly or switch to sample student results.

Use this when the audience wants to try a specific engineering decision in the actual hosted product before discussing protected learning. Open the canonical AI route-selection lab. No sign-in, package setup or provider key is needed. This is the production learning application using a synthetic teaching packet, not a live model benchmark.

Ask the receiver to explain why an A-then-B fallback cannot use a fresh allowance: two plus four attempted credits exceeds the same five-credit request limit. Keep their actual explanation, including uncertainty. Do not announce a learner pass or a staffing conclusion. The controls inspect authored arithmetic; there is no model judgment or production routing change.

For a longer technical conversation, allow ten additional minutes and open Defend a changed source. Ask for an initial decision and explanation before revealing the authored reasoning. A timely, within-budget proposal uses a source withdrawn before acceptance. Let the receiver distinguish the historical read from current eligibility, then inspect the record retaining their first attempt and revision. Label a presenter-authored attempt accurately; the exercise does not evaluate the free-text explanation or establish independent competence.

If a download is unavailable, use the displayed record or keep notes in the receiving sheet; do not wait repeatedly for a browser event. This public exercise does not save or submit work to Academy. Use the related evaluation lesson link only if the presenting account already has access; that continuation is outside this five-minute branch.

Use this after the production learning loop when a technical lead asks what the learner actually learns about agent reliability. Allow five additional minutes; do not squeeze it into the main ten-minute story. It connects a free practice route, protected instruction and the application's existing authored feedback. No local executable or live model call is needed for this branch.

Before the meeting, verify that the presenting account can open the service-design lesson. Keep its actual account role visible. Rehearse with your own clearly labeled synthetic writing; do not substitute a learner's work, share credentials or claim the account is a student account if it is an administrator's workspace. This branch needs no playbook save, artifact submission or provider activation.

Prepare a truthful feedback demonstration

The service-design lesson has eight knowledge checks. Check my understanding requires a choice for every check; a single selected answer does not enable it. Rehearse those decisions before the meeting so the controls are familiar. If you intentionally select the empty-catalog misconception to show remediation, say so before selecting it. Let the other choices reflect your actual reading. This is a presenter-authored example of feedback, not an unseen learner attempt or an assessment of the audience.

For a completed set of choices, select Check my understanding. The misconception feedback explains that an empty intermediate page cannot establish that the complete eligible catalog is empty. Its next-practice panel offers Revisit: Make source coverage explicit in the adapter contract. Follow it and point to the missing continuation evidence. If the check set is unfinished, leave it unfinished and use Learn's section navigation; do not announce that a result was produced. A successful navigation is evidence of the product flow, not evidence that the learner has mastered it.

Turn the explanation into a receiving task

Ask the receiver to describe the operator's next step in two cases: an interrupted lookup and a completed empty snapshot. They should identify an adapter-owner investigation for incomplete coverage and a procedure-owner next step for a genuinely absent instruction. Capture their actual explanation and one remaining gap without supplying the answer for them. Label self-rehearsal accurately when no receiving participant is present.

Close with: “The hosted application connects a specific engineering decision to instruction, practice and targeted feedback. The free executable separately lets an engineer inspect the fixture's control flow. Neither demonstrates a live source connector or the performance of a model planner.” Keep the actual response if you also use the lesson mentor, and describe its displayed mode separately; this authored knowledge-check correction is not a generated model judgment.

Use this route to make the engineering behind agentic work inspectable. It combines real teaching resources with local execution of authored plans and responses. It does not run a live model planner or deploy an autonomous agent. State that boundary once at the start, then let the audience challenge the actual controls and the learner's explanation.

Before the session, obtain the tool dispatcher, bounded loop and output-contract lab. Keep their editions and original files. Use Node.js 24 in an approved local practice folder. The programs need no package installation, provider account or credentials and perform no external writes. Do not make a last-minute live provider integration part of this route.

0:00–1:00 — Give the audience one agent boundary to challenge

Open the free guide library, choose Agent engineering and open the source-consistency practice. Show its prediction table before the worked interpretation. Ask the technical receiver: “If an agent read an allowed source, what could prevent its next drafting step?” Retain the answer rather than supplying a model answer for them.

Explain: “The learner must connect a proposed action to trusted context, an enforcing control and an operator next step. These are authored scenarios whose local control flow we can inspect.” If the guide is open from a local server or downloaded copy, name that environment; do not describe it as production.

1:00–3:00 — Separate a proposal from tool authority

node fde-tool-dispatch-lab.mjs supported
node fde-tool-dispatch-lab.mjs send-request

Ask the receiver to point to the completed operations in each trace. Supported completes two tools and produces a review-required draft. Send-request completes one read, then stops manual/tool-not-allowed. The plan's proposed send never acquires authority from the text that requested it. There is no sending tool in this program.

Ask the developer: “Which checks must remain outside a future planner?” Use the actual allowlist, exact arguments and per-step authority checks on screen. A strong explanation identifies the enforcing code and its limitation; the presence of a fluent plan is not the evidence.

3:00–5:00 — Let the receiver choose the changed condition

Offer access revocation or a source changing under the same revision. Run the selected command, leaving the other as a follow-up rather than racing through both cases.

node fde-tool-dispatch-lab.mjs revoked
node fde-tool-dispatch-lab.mjs same-revision-drift

Both stop after one completed read and withhold draft text. Revoked stops at authorization with access-revoked. Same-revision-drift stops at the snapshot comparison with source-changed. Ask the receiver to explain why those reasons lead to different owner questions. Keep “the document existed earlier” separate from “this operation may use it now.” The fixture event is deterministic; it does not establish atomic behavior under real concurrent changes.

5:00–7:00 — Show why unused budget is not permission to continue

node fde-agent-loop-lab.mjs rate-limit-deadline
node fde-agent-loop-lab.mjs expired-credential

Each admits one attempt, consumes two invented credits and stops after 100 virtual milliseconds. The requested 900-ms wait is rejected with retry-window-exhausted; no waiting or second attempt occurred. Expired-credential instead stops with credential-expired before the unused draft proposal. Point to the failure classification as well as the numerical budget.

Ask the executive: “Who restores the integration, and what should the operator do while it is unavailable?” Have the receiver identify the existing manual route and the responsible role. Neither a larger budget nor a faster retry repairs credentials. These counters describe the fixture, not actual provider cost, cancellation or availability.

7:00–9:00 — Give uncertainty a useful operator outcome

node fde-output-contract-lab.mjs abstain-conflict
node fde-output-contract-lab.mjs unsupported-claim

The first returns manual/candidate-abstained without a draft; its candidateReason is conflicting-source. That explanation is not a verified source finding. The second passes shape/reference checks and reaches review-required while its photo-ID requirement and same-day promise remain unsupported by the supplied instruction. Ask the receiver to name the useful next action for each before showing the lab's suggestion.

Do not collapse these into “AI failed” or treat both as approved answers. The operator can inspect an authorized procedure and continue manually, while the procedure owner resolves an actual conflict. A valid citation cannot establish the truth of an added promise.

9:00–10:00 — End with a receiving action, not a capability slogan

Let the receiver choose one trace and explain, without your coaching: the last completed action, the control that stopped or constrained the next action, the operator's next step and the evidence still needed in a real integration. Record what they actually identified and where they needed help. If alone, label the record self-rehearsal.

Close with one concrete follow-up: the snapshot contract, a failure-classification review or an independent output-support case. Name a role and the next evidence to inspect. The route demonstrates inspectable engineering exercises and a receiving explanation; model planning quality, field deployment and learner qualification require their own evidence. A local exercise does not substitute for the hosted learning-product walkthrough.

0:00–1:00 — Show where the learner starts

Show: public course outline, free learning kit and the learner's discovery brief. Point to the one-queue, one-location administrative forms task.

Say: “Free material gives a prospective engineer a concrete starting task. The guided course builds a connected delivery packet. For this case, the operator needs the current form-location instruction and retains review and sending authority.”

Ask the executive: “Which operational decision would you need this packet to support?” Capture the question; do not invent a customer goal or claim a saving.

1:00–3:00 — Follow one working implementation

Show: the Academy build-workflow lesson, the learner's small annotated diff, and this command in the local practice folder:

node fde-client-delivery-starter.mjs supported

Point to mode: offline-scripted, ADMIN-FORM-04, version 3, the authorization and retrieval trace, and the operator's next action.

Say: “This run executes a local scripted adapter. The learner can inspect where identity, scoped retrieval and output are separated before connecting a model. A model adapter would sit inside this boundary; it would not own permissions or sending. The implementation note tells us what was actually exercised.”

Ask the developer: “Where would you substitute an adapter, and which controls must remain outside it?” Keep the answer tied to the code on screen.

3:00–5:00 — Let failure explain the design

Show: run these two cases and identify the first stage that stops each:

node fde-client-delivery-starter.mjs denied
node fde-client-delivery-starter.mjs withdrawn

The denied case stops before source lookup. The withdrawn case reaches scoped retrieval and finds no current source. Both leave a clear next action.

Say: “The learner must explain why these outcomes differ. We evaluate the path and the operator's next move, not just whether an answer sounds confident.”

If asked about agentic behavior, trace the intended sequence of task selection, scoped source use, proposal and human action. Identify the part executed by the script and the parts that would require a configured model and independently authorized tools. These commands demonstrate deterministic control flow, not a live agent autonomously selecting or invoking tools.

5:00–6:30 — Demonstrate engineering judgment

Show: the evaluation register and one contract counterexample:

node fde-output-contract-lab.mjs unsupported-claim

Point to review-required and support: not-evaluated, then compare the draft's photo-ID requirement and completion promise with the actual source instruction.

Say: “A structurally valid result can still contain an unsupported claim. The learner must identify it, record the evidence and request a precise revision. The calibration exercise lets reviewers compare their reasoning without treating agreement as proof of accuracy.”

Show one genuine revision from the chosen packet, or explicitly label the presenter's authored before/after example. Do not submit or save work on behalf of a learner during a sales demonstration.

6:30–8:00 — Give the receiver the controls

Show: run the timeout case, then let the receiver use the prepared runbook:

node fde-client-delivery-starter.mjs timeout

Say: “The local adapter deliberately stalls and returns a manual path. Please tell us what you would do next, where you would find the approved procedure, and which evidence you would give the receiving engineer.”

Stop coaching for up to 30 seconds. The receiver points to a manual action, owner role and source/version evidence. The observer records a specific action or hesitation. If a stop/restore step exists only on paper, identify it as a tabletop step; do not claim this command stopped a deployed service.

8:00–9:00 — Show the individual contribution

Show: the portfolio index with the learner's contribution, original attempt, review note and revision. Ask the learner or synthetic presenter to explain one changed assumption without replaying a memorized slide.

Say: “Team delivery and individual capability are different evidence. We want to see what this person built, why they changed it, and how they respond when the task changes. Course participation and provider-issued credentials remain separately evidenced.”

9:00–10:00 — Close with a concrete pilot decision

Show: the packet's recommended next scope and the workbook's review-capacity arithmetic. Explain which figures are planning assumptions.

Say: “The next decision is a bounded pilot with a defined learner group, receiving workflow, review capacity and acceptance evidence. We would observe first-task completion, quality of revisions, reviewer effort and receiver teach-back before proposing expansion.”

Record the buyer's requested next decision and an owner role. A demonstration alone does not establish deployment capacity, field readiness or staffing outcomes.

If internet or account access fails, use the free workbook and local programs. Say which protected steps are unavailable. If Node is unavailable, use the saved output labeled recorded; do not stage a fake live run. If an unexpected result appears, preserve it and use the remaining time to explain what it changes. A demo-only repair is follow-up work, not something to hide while the audience waits.

If only five minutes remain, show the problem, the supported case, the unsupported claim and one receiver action. Skip the capacity discussion and take it offline. Never remove the execution-mode label or failure case to make the story smoother.

Date / presenter / receiving role / observer:
Route selected / audience decision question:
Environment, file revision and evidence origin:
Observed mode: hosted product / local execution / recorded / tabletop:
Receiver action attempted without coaching:
Observed action or hesitation (quote or concrete behavior):
Artifact or instruction needing revision:
One change to make / responsible role:
Evidence that would demonstrate the repair:
Buyer's next decision / information needed:

Record performed actions, not “audience impressed.” Revise the highest-consequence gap and repeat only the affected handoff step. A self-rehearsal stays self-rehearsal; acceptance and learner outcomes require actual observations by the relevant people.