Public preparation protocol / 2026-10-30.2
Enterprise employee pilot
Check an AI draft against its sources, correct an unsupported commitment and give the next owner an answerable action.
Try the opening task ↓A narrow test of source-based judgment and handoff. It does not measure general AI fluency, productivity or live-model quality.
Before a real session
Set up the people
and the conditions.
- No account, installation, API key or workplace data is needed. Use a separate record for every person, including people sharing a device.
- Allow 10–15 minutes for the opening task, a 60-minute guided clinic and a 10–15 minute changed task on a later agreed day. Setup, accessibility arrangements, breaks and receiving exchanges are additional. These are planning estimates, not measured learner times.
- Use fictional aliases in locally held records. Agree participation, permitted assistance, accessibility needs, retention and deletion before collecting anything. A manager receives only the agreed summary, not private individual answers by default.
Facilitator
Confirms the goal and arrangements. Records actual help and interrupted or missing work; keeps teaching separate from review.
Reviewer
Reads the specific response against the criteria. Keeps evidence and disagreements; asks for revision without replacing the learner’s answer.
Receiving team
Attempts the agreed action from the handoff. Retains its own account and owns the next operational decision within actual authority.
Your own evidence / Local tab only
Try the task before
you compare the notes.
Use a separate record for each person. Keep an opening response before instruction, then return to the changed task on the agreed later day. There is no automatic score or submission.
Nothing is saved to an account or browser storage. Download or copy your record before following another link or closing this tab. The reading file does not reopen these fields. Keep later-day records as separate files and compare them beside the opening record.
01 / Opening task
A decision is not its completed effect
Attempt this before the guided practice. Keep your first explanation and declare any earlier exposure.
E-A1 / Dispatch
For fictional order O-73, Friday 13 November, 13:00–16:00 is requested. The existing Wednesday appointment remains confirmed. Dispatch has not accepted the move.
E-A2 / Service lead
Remove the $30 charge for O-73 only. This decision changes no appointment and creates no future-order entitlement. No billing posting receipt is supplied.
We have moved your delivery to Friday and credited $30 to your account. Future deliveries will also be free.
Write a supportable replacement message. For each changed claim, cite the source and separate a request, a decision and an applied effect. Give dispatch and billing one concrete next action; do not carry out either action.
A first snapshot is local writing, not verified chronology or independent performance.
Compare with the reviewer notes
Opening these notes keeps existing writing as the first response if one was not already kept. Empty writing remains unanswered. Notes and public prior exposure prevent treating this as a held-out assessment.
- E-A1 supports a request for Friday, while Wednesday remains confirmed. Ask dispatch to confirm or refuse the move; do not promise it.
- E-A2 supports a $30 removal decision for O-73, not a posted credit or future entitlement. Ask billing for the actual posting evidence. Missing evidence leaves the effect unknown; it does not prove success or failure.
- Accept different wording if it preserves the states, scope and next owner. Simply deleting the legitimate request loses useful work.
03 / Later changed task
Apply the same distinction to purchasing
Agree a later day before opening this task. Record the actual interval and prior exposure; opening it today does not demonstrate retention.
E-B1 / Department request
The fictional facilities team requests twelve replacement monitors. Its current request lists delivery next Monday as a preference. No purchase order or supplier confirmation is supplied.
E-B2 / Budget owner
Budget is approved for six replacement monitors for this request only. Procurement must choose the supplier and issue the order. This approval does not authorize a recurring subscription.
Twelve monitors are ordered for Monday. We have also activated your monthly replacement subscription.
Prepare a corrected internal update with source references. Identify the approved scope, the requested but unconfirmed facts and the missing transaction evidence. Give the receiving procurement colleague a next action they can actually attempt.
A first snapshot is local writing, not verified chronology or independent performance.
Compare with the reviewer notes
Opening these notes keeps existing writing as the first response if one was not already kept. Empty writing remains unanswered. Notes and public prior exposure prevent treating this as a held-out assessment.
- E-B1 records a request for twelve and a preferred date, not an order or a confirmed delivery. E-B2 approves budget for six only.
- Procurement still chooses a supplier and issues the order. A purchase order and supplier confirmation would answer different questions. Neither is in this packet.
- No source authorizes the recurring subscription. Return that claim while retaining the useful request and limited budget approval. Record which distinctions transferred and which needed help.
04 / Receiver and review
Let another person attempt the next step.
Give the receiver the sources and your update. Ask them to locate the approved scope and one unresolved fact, then state the owner and action. Record what they actually locate, any hint and any author takeover. Role-play is not a real dispatch, billing or procurement action.
Human review / No automatic grade
Review the work,
criterion by criterion.
For each task, record evidenced, needs revision or not observed, with an exact quotation or observed action. Keep assistance visible. A missing source, invented approval or unusable handoff remains a gap even when other parts are strong.
| Criterion | Evidence to locate | Return for revision when |
|---|---|---|
| Source and state | Cites the exact source for request, approval and completed effect; leaves missing evidence unknown. | A requested or approved action is reported as completed without its receipt. |
| Useful correction | Preserves the legitimate request while narrowing unsupported quantity, date, fee or subscription claims. | The response repeats the commitment or removes the useful request entirely. |
| Authority and scope | Keeps each approval within its named request and identifies who can take the next action. | One approval is treated as permission for another action or future entitlement. |
| Receiving action | A colleague locates the relevant source and explains their actual next step from the written handoff. | The author has to supply missing facts or do the receiving task for the colleague. |
Use a second reviewer on an agreed sample. Both keep their initial judgments before discussion; unresolved disagreement stays unresolved. This public rubric has not been calibrated on a learner cohort.
Rehearse with three fictional reviews ↓Return with a useful next decision.
Retain each person’s opening and later work separately. Report who attempted each stage, which help was needed, which receiving actions were observed and which follow-ups are missing. Different tasks and public exposure limit comparison; do not convert a revised response into a claim of unaided skill.
Choose the next lesson correction or supervised practice from that evidence. Client placement, independent delivery, teaching approval and qualification remain separate decisions.
Review the pilot reporting and launch conditions →Before reviewing people / Three fictional examples
Rehearse the review
before the pilot.
Use the opening source packet and criteria above. Allow about 25 additional minutes for this preparation, plus discussion. Two reviewers should write their own criterion judgments and exact evidence before opening each comparison. Working alone is self-review. These public examples prepare a discussion; they do not establish reviewer reliability or teaching approval.
- Identify whose work you are reviewing. For each criterion, choose evidenced, needs revision or not observed and quote the response or supplied observation that supports it.
- Keep the initial judgment, declared help and prior answer exposure in a separate record. Then compare reasoning, locate the source and retain disagreements instead of agreeing on an average.
- Request one useful correction and name the next receiving task. An author’s plan, a receiver’s action and another person’s work stay separate.
Keep the Markdown worksheet locally. The learner’s later changed task is separate; declare prior exposure before using it.
E-R1 / Opening packet practice
A citation attached to the wrong claim
Review target: The author's written update.
Your Friday delivery is confirmed [E-A1]. The $30 charge removal for O-73 is approved [E-A2]; billing still needs to confirm posting. Dispatch can send the Friday confirmation.
Supplied observation: No receiving exchange is supplied. This fictional response is the only work available to the reviewer.
Compare the criterion reasoning for E-R1
Read these reference judgments after preserving your own. Discuss the source and criterion when your reasoning differs; retain any unresolved disagreement.
- Source and state — Needs revision
- The phrase Friday delivery is confirmed contradicts E-A1: Friday is requested and Wednesday remains confirmed. Citing E-A1 does not make the interpretation supported. The billing distinction is useful but cannot cancel this failure.
- Useful correction — Needs revision
- The one-order fee scope and missing posting are retained, but the appointment commitment survives. Ask for that specific correction rather than rewriting the whole answer.
- Authority and scope — Needs revision
- Dispatch is asked to send a confirmation for an acceptance not supplied. Ask dispatch to confirm or refuse the requested move first.
- Receiving action — Not observed
- A proposed dispatch action is written. No colleague's actual source lookup or receiving explanation is present.
Useful next step: Return the unsupported confirmation for revision. Retain the correct billing distinction, then arrange an observed receiving turn. Do not average the source failure away.
E-R2 / Opening packet practice
Refusal loses the work the sources allow
Review target: The author's written update.
Nothing in this packet can be trusted. Cancel the request and ask management to start again. I cannot help with appointments or charges.
Supplied observation: No cancellation happened and no receiving colleague was observed. The refusal is fictional written work, not a safety control.
Compare the criterion reasoning for E-R2
Read these reference judgments after preserving your own. Discuss the source and criterion when your reasoning differs; retain any unresolved disagreement.
- Source and state — Needs revision
- Nothing can be trusted discards supplied evidence without identifying a problem with it. E-A1 still supports a requested move and an existing confirmed appointment; E-A2 supports a bounded fee decision.
- Useful correction — Needs revision
- Removing every claim also removes the legitimate request. A useful correction retains the request and decision while leaving their unconfirmed effects unknown.
- Authority and scope — Needs revision
- Cancel the request adds an action that neither source authorizes. A cautious tone is not evidence of appropriate scope.
- Receiving action — Not observed
- No receiver acted or explained an action. Do not infer a successful handoff from the absence of a promise.
Useful next step: Ask for a narrow, source-linked update with dispatch and billing questions. Keep the absence of a receiving observation visible.
E-R3 / Opening packet practice
Useful writing with an unobserved handoff
Review target: The author's written update.
Wednesday remains confirmed; Friday 13 November, 13:00–16:00 is requested, pending dispatch acceptance [E-A1]. The service lead approved removing $30 for O-73 only [E-A2]; posting is unknown. Dispatch: confirm or refuse the move. Billing: locate the posting receipt. No future fee entitlement is supported.
Supplied observation: The author reports using a peer's hint about decision versus posting. No receiving colleague's account or observed action is supplied.
Compare the criterion reasoning for E-R3
Read these reference judgments after preserving your own. Discuss the source and criterion when your reasoning differs; retain any unresolved disagreement.
- Source and state — Evidenced
- Wednesday confirmed, Friday requested and posting unknown preserve the different states against E-A1/E-A2. This judgment concerns the supplied writing, not unaided performance.
- Useful correction — Evidenced
- The useful request and one-order fee decision remain while unsupported effects and future entitlement are removed.
- Authority and scope — Evidenced
- The questions go to dispatch and billing within their roles; the text does not claim either action completed.
- Receiving action — Not observed
- Written next steps are available, but no receiver has located a source or explained an actual next action. Declared peer help also prevents an unaided-skill inference.
Useful next step: Retain the writing and declared help. Arrange a receiving turn and record its actual evidence; do not mark the whole task complete because three written criteria fit.
Before real review, confirm the reviewers, material version, handling arrangements and a shared sample. Retain both original accounts and unresolved criterion disagreements. Ask the decision owner to resolve an unsafe interpretation before expanding review responsibilities.