Use lessons 01–05 or equivalent skills before this exercise. You can revisit them from the lesson list.
A browser and text editor. Live source discovery needs browsing; all supplied exercises also work offline.
Start with the idea
Deliver a briefing someone can trace back to its sources.
Keep the brief, source list, claim checks and revision note together. Explain missing evidence and a justified alternative. Say what would trigger another review.
Decision package: The recommendation plus the sources, checks, limits and next decision it depends on.
See the example and check your understanding
A made-up teaching example
The worked package states that it uses supplied fictional records. A recommendation points to evidence and names a review trigger. It does not establish current program rules or wider demand.
Ask yourself
Does a complete classroom package verify current external policy?
Show the explanation
No. State the source boundary. Actual current facts need appropriate source research and review.
Start with these checks
- Keep sample and staffing limits.
- Include a justified alternative.
- Make the review trigger explicit.
Use the different practice case below and check every requirement in its full instructions.
Full learning objectives
- Integrate conflicting sources and calculations.
- Document model and harness limitations.
- Defend a recommendation and identify missing evidence.
Captions appear here during playback.
Capstone: deliver a defensible decision briefing
Deliver a briefing someone can trace back to its sources.
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
Deliver a briefing someone can trace back to its sources.
What appears on screen
Deliver a briefing someone can trace back to its sources.
0:06 · The idea
Keep the brief, source list, claim checks and revision note together. Explain missing evidence and a justified alternative. Say what would trigger another review.
What appears on screen
Keep the brief, source list, claim checks and revision note together. Explain missing evidence and a justified alternative. Say what would trigger another review.
0:20 · One useful term
Decision package. The recommendation plus the sources, checks, limits and next decision it depends on.
What appears on screen
The recommendation plus the sources, checks, limits and next decision it depends on.
0:30 · A worked example
The worked package states that it uses supplied fictional records. A recommendation points to evidence and names a review trigger. It does not establish current program rules or wider demand.
What appears on screen
The worked package states that it uses supplied fictional records. A recommendation points to evidence and names a review trigger. It does not establish current program rules or wider demand.
0:45 · Your turn to think
Does a complete classroom package verify current external policy? Pause and decide before continuing.
What appears on screen
Does a complete classroom package verify current external policy? Pause the video if you need more time.
1:03 · Why this answer works
No. State the source boundary. Actual current facts need appropriate source research and review.
What appears on screen
No. State the source boundary. Actual current facts need appropriate source research and review.
1:13 · Check 1
Keep sample and staffing limits.
What appears on screen
Keep sample and staffing limits.
1:18 · Check 2
Include a justified alternative.
What appears on screen
Include a justified alternative.
1:23 · Check 3
Make the review trigger explicit.
What appears on screen
Make the review trigger explicit.
1:28 · 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
Treat the capstone as a small evidence package, not a polished essay alone. Keep the brief, source register, claim ledger, revisions and unresolved questions together. Record model/product, source access, supplied context and tools if you use AI. For the offline route, state that you used supplied sources without live discovery.
Set acceptance criteria before drafting. Assess support, applicability, arithmetic, clarity and uncertainty separately. A readable report can still fail support. After self-review, ask a peer to challenge two consequential claims if available; peer review is optional and not instructor certification. Revisit the decision when new evidence changes an assumption.
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
Worked structure: decision brief; source register; claim ledger; revision note; unresolved questions. A recommendation links to evidence and states its review trigger.
A checked result
Sample limitation: “This package uses fictional supplied records. It does not establish current program rules or measured organization-wide demand.”
Why this works
A clear boundary prevents a classroom artifact being mistaken for verified external research.
Your independent capstone
Independent capstone: F1 survey—16 replies from 50 invitees, 12 favor a weekend event; F2 coordinator note—staff can support one event for 20 people; F3 old flyer—capacity 35; F4 draft—“Most invitees want this, and attendance will be 35.” Decide whether to propose a limited event.
Download this task and checklist →Interactive practice / Fictional fixture
Audit the capstone decision
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.
Explain alternatives, source conflicts, uncertainty, review trigger and one correction.
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.
Decision brief, ledger and follow-up questions
A strong answer
Decision: propose one weekend event capped at 20 people. Ledger: 12 of 16 replies favor the event (75% of replies, F1). 50 were invited, so 34 did not reply and are unknown. Staff can support one event for 20 (F2). The flyer figure of 35 (F3) is old and conflicts with F2; I use F2. Removed from the draft: the claim about what the majority of invitees want, and the 35 figure. Alternative: wait and survey again. Review trigger: if fewer than 10 sign up, do not repeat. Open questions: is F2 current, and why did 34 not reply? Correction made: changed “invitees” to “replies”.
A flawed answer
Most invitees want the event (75%), so we should run it and plan for 35 people as the flyer says. Uncertainty: some people may not come.
What is wrong with it: 75% is the share of 16 replies, not of 50 invitees. The plan uses the old flyer figure of 35 over the coordinator’s current limit of 20. The uncertainty line names nothing that could be checked.
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
- Create a source register with supplied scope and unknown metadata.
- Audit F4 and build a claim ledger.
- Write a 300-word options brief, a conditional recommendation and three follow-up questions.
- Record one substantive revision and your tool configuration or offline method.
Check your work
- Use 12/16 respondents, preserving the 50-invitee denominator.
- Treat 20 as the supported staffing capacity; flag the old flyer.
- Do not forecast attendance as observed or guarantee demand.
- Include a justified alternative and explicit review trigger.
After your attempt: review notes and a common mistake
A limited event may be reasonable if capacity and staffing are respected; declining pending better evidence may also pass. Neither “most invitees” nor 35 attendees is supported. A strong package makes the distinction visible in its ledger, not merely in a footnote.
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 new evidence would make you reverse your recommendation?
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.