Basic AI verification and familiarity with a work process. No coding required; technical partners may be needed.
A text editor and supplied fictional decision packets. No purchase, procurement action or operational approval is performed.
Start with the idea
Start with the work problem rather than a product purchase.
Name the decision or failure you want to improve. Measure the current process. Compare a simple alternative before adding autonomy.
Baseline: The current process and its measured outcomes used for comparison.
See the example and check your understanding
A made-up teaching example
Weekly updates omit owners, but the team has no time or error baseline. Instead of first buying an autonomous sender, test a structured template and measure missing owners.
Ask yourself
Does buying an agent establish that autonomy is needed?
Show the explanation
No. Compare bounded drafting only if it adds value. Keep sending under explicit review.
Start with these checks
- Measure the stated problem.
- Consider a simpler alternative.
- Keep maintenance and release ownership explicit.
Use the different practice case below and check every requirement in its full instructions.
Full learning objectives
- Identify a specific workflow problem.
- Compare non-AI alternatives.
- Define a measurable outcome and accountable owner.
Captions appear here during playback.
Select a use case with a real decision and baseline
Start with the work problem rather than a product purchase.
Video playback is unavailable. Read the descriptive transcript below, go directly to practice, or open the video file.
Source-based teaching example · Fictional data · Reviewed 2026-10-03. Microsoft Mark · locally synthesized. On a small screen, use fullscreen for diagram details or read the transcript.
Read the descriptive transcript
0:00 · What you will learn
Start with the work problem rather than a product purchase.
What appears on screen
Start with the work problem rather than a product purchase.
0:06 · The idea
Name the decision or failure you want to improve. Measure the current process. Compare a simple alternative before adding autonomy.
What appears on screen
Name the decision or failure you want to improve. Measure the current process. Compare a simple alternative before adding autonomy.
0:17 · One useful term
Baseline. The current process and its measured outcomes used for comparison.
What appears on screen
The current process and its measured outcomes used for comparison.
0:25 · A worked example
Weekly updates omit owners, but the team has no time or error baseline. Instead of first buying an autonomous sender, test a structured template and measure missing owners.
What appears on screen
Weekly updates omit owners, but the team has no time or error baseline. Instead of first buying an autonomous sender, test a structured template and measure missing owners.
0:39 · Your turn to think
Does buying an agent establish that autonomy is needed? Pause and decide before continuing.
What appears on screen
Does buying an agent establish that autonomy is needed? Pause the video if you need more time.
0:56 · Why this answer works
No. Compare bounded drafting only if it adds value. Keep sending under explicit review.
What appears on screen
No. Compare bounded drafting only if it adds value. Keep sending under explicit review.
1:06 · Check 1
Measure the stated problem.
What appears on screen
Measure the stated problem.
1:10 · Check 2
Consider a simpler alternative.
What appears on screen
Consider a simpler alternative.
1:15 · Check 3
Keep maintenance and release ownership explicit.
What appears on screen
Keep maintenance and release ownership explicit.
1:21 · Now try a different case
Open the lesson and try its different practice case. Use every check in the full task. Watching alone does not mark the lesson complete.
What appears on screen
Open the lesson Try the new case Check and revise The full task and its requirements are in the linked lesson.
Watching explains the example. Complete the lesson practice to check what you can do. Explore all visual lessons →
The method
Start with a work problem, not a mandate to add AI. Identify the current process, affected people, frequency, failure costs and what evidence exists. Compare AI with a template, search improvement, deterministic automation or process change. A credible proposal explains why the additional uncertainty and maintenance are justified.
Separate observed problems from desired benefits. Name a decision owner and define what success would mean before evaluating vendors. Include quality, review effort and consequences of failure. This exercise uses fictional proposals; it does not authorize procurement or actual organizational use.
Choose your model, harness and offline route
Text-only assistant
Use supplied text. Ask for a plan or draft; do not claim browsing, code execution or file access that was unavailable.
Tool-enabled application or harness
Record which tools actually run, allowed files and actions, approval boundaries and observable results. Tools are optional unless the task needs them.
Local or cloud deployment
Inspect inference, retrieval, connectors, logs and storage separately. Use only authorized environments for real data; training fixtures are fictional.
Higher-capability or frontier model
Evaluate the exact task and configuration. Capability does not supply missing evidence or grant permission. No provider ranking or guarantee is implied.
Offline alternative
Use the supplied inputs and inspect the worked example manually. Builder exercises use local deterministic Python. No paid account or live model call is required.
Record the exact product/model label when available, tools actually used, inputs, permitted actions, observed output and checks. Live accounts or APIs may have external costs; they are optional and are not used by this page.
Read the general workflow guide →Worked example
Supplied input
Fictional team: weekly updates omit owners. No baseline time or error count exists. Proposal: buy an autonomous agent to send updates.
A checked result
First test a structured update template and measure omitted-owner frequency. Compare a bounded drafting assistant only if it adds value. Keep sending under explicit review.
Why this works
A simpler intervention may solve the stated problem. Buying autonomy does not establish need or benefit.
Try a different case
Independent case: onboarding questions repeat; current documents are outdated and no owner maintains them. Propose two alternatives and an evidence-gathering step before recommending an AI assistant.
Download this task and checklist →Interactive practice / Fictional fixture
Choose the next evidence-gathering step
Use the supplied independent case above. Check the bounded decisions, then review your written artifact against the full acceptance criteria.
Everything runs in this browser. No AI model is called and no work is uploaded. Bounded checks cover specific facts and rules. Your writing is not graded: you review it yourself. Practice never marks a lesson complete automatically.
State affected users, ownership, quality standard and a bounded test.
Try the task, run the checks, then revise. Checks are teaching feedback, not an instructor grade.
Observed browser simulation
This trace comes from the bounded local checker. It is not a Python run, model result or production tool execution.
Self-review
Locked. Write every written part, then run the checks. A few words is not an attempt.
This is self-review, not grading. Read our answers, then tick what your own work does. Ticks are optional. They stay on this page and are not saved or sent anywhere. A different answer can be just as good if it meets the lesson criteria.
Your options assessment and baseline measure
A strong answer
Problem: new starters ask the same onboarding questions. The documents are outdated and nobody owns them. Affected: new starters and whoever answers them. Option A, no AI: name an owner, update the ten most-asked topics and make them easy to find. Option B: an assistant that answers only from the updated documents, with the owner reviewing. B depends on A. Evidence step before either: log every onboarding question for two weeks. Count repeats, and count how many the current documents answer correctly. Quality standard: an answer matches the current document and names it.
A flawed answer
Deploy an AI assistant trained on our existing onboarding documents so new starters get instant answers. Alternative: do nothing. We will measure success by how many questions it answers.
What is wrong with it: The existing documents are outdated, so the assistant would hand out old guidance faster. “Do nothing” is not a real alternative. Counting answers says nothing about whether they were right.
Keep or restore your work
Drafts are not saved automatically. Save only fictional practice data. A browser draft may be lost if storage is cleared; download a copy to keep it.
Your steps
- State the problem and affected users.
- Compare document maintenance with an AI-supported option.
- Define quality and owner responsibilities.
Check your work
- Source maintenance remains an explicit dependency.
- No guaranteed savings or adoption claim.
- Identify a baseline and a bounded test.
After your attempt: review notes and a common mistake
A bot trained on outdated material can reproduce the underlying problem. A strong option includes ownership and document quality, not only a new interface.
Different wording or a different justified decision can pass. Check your work against every requirement; these notes are not an automated grade.
Explain your approach
What would make you choose the non-AI option?
Keep your artifact, one correction or decision, its evidence and one remaining limitation. Nothing on this page sends or uploads your work.
Check your understanding
Choose an answer to see feedback. This is a knowledge check, not instructor assessment.
Review your independent practice
Complete the supplied task before recording progress. Use the acceptance criteria and reveal the review notes after your attempt. Keep your artifact yourself; nothing is uploaded.
Not yet self-reviewed. Completion stays in this browser and does not issue a badge.
Optional deeper study
Explore the related general-course lesson → This opens the existing canonical lesson; it is optional depth, not another copy of this focused task.
Revision 2026-10-03. Fictional examples, not observed provider results. Knowledge checks and completion records are self-study aids.