Course 1 - FDE Foundations and Persona

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Insurance underwriting and consumer lending.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: None.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.1 The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Start each session with the operational failure the lesson is designed to prevent.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1 (Engagement Charter).
• The formative answer addresses: Why does the cost curve of frontier models make the FDE role more important, not less?

Formative check

Why does the cost curve of frontier models make the FDE role more important, not less?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not let vocabulary recognition stand in for usable judgment.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.1 The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Economics Era of AI: From Experimentation to Value against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Pharmaceutical R&D operations.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.1.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.2 The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Ask trainees to name the evidence standard before discussing tools or tactics.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1.
• The formative answer addresses: Which persona dominates during the Discovery stage of the lifecycle, and why?

Formative check

Which persona dominates during the Discovery stage of the lifecycle, and why?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not let vocabulary recognition stand in for usable judgment.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.2 The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The FDE Trinity: Engineer, Strategist, Implementer against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Logistics & supply chain.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.2.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.3 The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Use short compare-and-contrast examples: delivery mindset versus founder-like ownership.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 6 (Certification Review).
• The formative answer addresses: What is the difference between the Artisan and Repeatable Capability stages?

Formative check

What is the difference between the Artisan and Repeatable Capability stages?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not let case discussion stay descriptive; force a recommendation and next action.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.3 The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Four-Stage Maturation Loop: Artisan to Orchestrated against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Manufacturing quality.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.3.
• Prepare a weak and strong evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates artifact for 1.4.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

1. 7 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 11 min - model the core concept or move
3. 24 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 12 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 6 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Close with a visible artifact review instead of a verbal confidence check.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• Eval plan includes a representative golden dataset, ideally at least 25 rows for this lab.
• Learner names evaluator types, cut scores, failure buckets, and review cadence.
• CI or release gate behavior is defined before interface polish.
• A/B or before/after evidence explains what changed and why it matters.

Formative check

Which lifecycle stage do most FDE projects actually fail in, and why?

Reject or remediate

• Reject evals that only report vibes, screenshots, or a single happy-path answer.
• Reject plans without cut scores or a named remediation path.
• Reject observability that cannot identify which failure bucket occurred.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner add five hard negative examples to the dataset.
• Require one evaluator tied to business risk and one tied to technical behavior.
• Ask for the exact condition that blocks deployment.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Public-sector modernization.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.4.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.5 Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 5 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 8 min - model the core concept or move
3. 18 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 9 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 5 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Start each session with the operational failure the lesson is designed to prevent.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Turn reflection into observable commitments, examples, and behavior checks.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1.
• The formative answer addresses: What is the single behavior that distinguishes founder-like ownership from delivery-mode ownership?

Formative check

What is the single behavior that distinguishes founder-like ownership from delivery-mode ownership?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not accept self-description without a next behavior and evidence source.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.5 Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Founder-Like Ownership and the Bias to Ship against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Telco customer support.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.4.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.6 The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 9 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 14 min - model the core concept or move
3. 30 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 15 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 7 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Ask trainees to name the evidence standard before discussing tools or tactics.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 4.
• The formative answer addresses: What evidence does a narrow path produce that a horizontal slice does not?

Formative check

What evidence does a narrow path produce that a horizontal slice does not?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not let case discussion stay descriptive; force a recommendation and next action.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.6 The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The 'Narrow Path' Prototyping Principle against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.6.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.7 Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 14 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 22 min - model the core concept or move
3. 48 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 24 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 12 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Use short compare-and-contrast examples: delivery mindset versus founder-like ownership.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 6.
• The formative answer addresses: Which Companion artifact closes the loop between Prototype and Adopt?

Formative check

Which Companion artifact closes the loop between Prototype and Adopt?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not reward completion alone; inspect error handling, assumptions, and reviewer usability.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.7 Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Evidence, Not Claims: Building the FDE Companion OS against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE through the course lens of identity, lifecycle judgment, narrow-path delivery, and evidence discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.1–1.7.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 1.8 Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 22 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 32 min - model the core concept or move
3. 72 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 36 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 18 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Close with a visible artifact review instead of a verbal confidence check.
• Ask learners to answer: What would a sponsor, reviewer, or teammate be able to inspect after this lesson?
• Reserve most time for build, critique, revision, and final defense.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1.
• The formative answer addresses: What is your one-sentence FDE thesis?

Formative check

What is your one-sentence FDE thesis?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE without producing an inspectable artifact.
• Do not over-teach during studio time; intervene through questions and rubric language.
• Reject work that hides the decision owner, risk, or next action.

Rubric focus

• Artifact is specific enough for a reviewer to inspect without a verbal walkthrough.
• Evidence is tied to a field decision, not a general opinion.
• Risks and limits are explicit.
• Next action is clear and owned.

Support and stretch

Support: Give learners a partially completed 1.8 Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Course 1 Mastery: Position Yourself as an FDE against a skeptical sponsor.

Remediation path

• Have the learner restate the decision, evidence, and weakest assumption in three sentences.
• Require one revision that makes the artifact inspectable by a sponsor or reviewer.
• Pair the learner with a peer reviewer for a five-minute evidence audit.

Debrief

Ask learners what changed in their artifact after review, what evidence remains weak, and what they would show a sponsor next.