FDE Teacher Training

Course 2 teacher guide

Course 2 - Mindsets and Strategy

Help instructors teach discovery, decomposition, answer-first communication, systems thinking, and judgment as teachable operating routines.

Use alongside the canonical trainee lessons; lesson titles open learner pages; do not change the learner curriculum.

Lessons 9

Aligned to trainee lesson IDs

Seat time 12 hr 30 min

Current roster estimate

Anchor question What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?

Use when facilitation drifts

Instructor outcomes

  • Facilitate discovery conversations that move from stated symptoms to root causes.
  • Coach MECE decomposition without letting it become academic box drawing.
  • Teach answer-first communication through artifacts sponsors can act on.
  • Help trainees recognize when automation should stop and human judgment should remain.

Course preparation

  • Prepare a messy sponsor request that can be decomposed three different ways.
  • Create a weak discovery brief and a strong discovery brief for live critique.
  • Choose role assignments for simulations: sponsor, operator, FDE, reviewer.
  • Bring a sample Jira-ready story that traces back to business language.

Facilitation moves

  • Make learners write the decision owner and decision moment before problem-solving.
  • Force every recommendation into an answer-first sentence before allowing details.
  • Ask for the system of record and the system of action in every workflow.
  • Debrief simulations by replaying the question that changed the conversation.

Common misconceptions

  • Believing discovery means collecting requirements instead of testing causality.
  • Using MECE labels that sound complete but do not change the next action.
  • Treating Pyramid Principle as formatting rather than sponsor cognition design.
  • Framing cost of inaction as fear instead of operational consequence.

Evidence standards

  • A root-cause chain with the evidence behind each why.
  • A MECE issue tree that exposes one real decision tradeoff.
  • An answer-first memo with recommendation, rationale, risks, and next action.
  • A Jira-ready spec with acceptance criteria tied to sponsor language.

Assessment cadence

  • Score one discovery question per learner during simulations.
  • Use one-minute answer-first rewrites after every case discussion.
  • Collect before-and-after versions of problem statements.
  • End the course with a live discovery simulation and artifact review.

Lesson map

Course 2 lesson map for teacher preparation and formative checks.
Lesson Title Mode Capstone tie Formative check
2.1 The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile Concept lesson Milestone 2 What does the Soft Stack add that the technical stack cannot deliver alone?
2.2 The Discovery Call: 5-Whys to Root Cause Simulation Milestone 2 Why is the second 'why' typically the most consequential?
2.3 MECE Decomposition for Vague AI Strategies Skill lab Milestone 2 Which test catches false MECE most quickly?
2.4 The Pyramid Principle: Answer-First Communication Concept lesson Milestone 3 Where does the answer go in a Pyramid memo, and why?
2.5 Translating Business Language to Jira-Ready Specs Skill lab Milestone 3 What is the difference between an acceptance criterion and a definition of done?
2.6 Systems Thinking & Systems of Record Case study Milestone 2 Why do FDEs always ask 'what is the System of Record' first?
2.7 Cost of Inaction & Anti-Gold-Plating Concept lesson Milestone 2 Why is Cost of Inaction a better prioritization frame than ROI in early FDE work?
2.8 Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment Case study Milestone 3 What is the failure mode that most often forces a step back across the Automation/Judgment boundary?
2.9 Course 2 Mastery: Live Discovery Simulation Simulation Milestone 2 What three artifacts must leave every FDE discovery call?

Instructor quick kit

  • Open the trainee lesson page and this teacher guide side by side.
  • Prepare a shared evidence folder or LMS assignment for each lesson artifact.
  • Keep the course anchor question visible during discussion and critique.
  • Assign a timekeeper, evidence reviewer, and sponsor voice during simulations or studios.

Teach-back prompts

  • What did you change in the artifact after critique?
  • What would a sponsor inspect first?
  • Which assumption is still weakest?
  • What should the next instructor know before the following course?

Lesson-by-lesson teaching guide

Lesson 2.1 · Concept lesson · 1 hr

The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Banking ops.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 1.4.
  • Prepare a weak and strong example of the 2.1 The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile 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

  • Make learners write the decision owner and decision moment before problem-solving.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • 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 Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile.
  • The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
  • The output can be reviewed against Milestone 2.
  • The formative answer addresses: What does the Soft Stack add that the technical stack cannot deliver alone?

Formative check

What does the Soft Stack add that the technical stack cannot deliver alone?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject submissions that only summarize The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile 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 2.1 The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Soft Stack: Why Mindset Beats Stack in the Last Mile 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.

Lesson 2.2 · Simulation · 1 hr 30 min

The Discovery Call: 5-Whys to Root Cause

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Healthcare claims processing.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: B3 or equivalent, 2.1.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.2.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Force every recommendation into an answer-first sentence before allowing details.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Run timed role play with named roles, constraints, and a visible decision log.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

Why is the second 'why' typically the most consequential?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.3 · Skill lab · 1 hr 30 min

MECE Decomposition for Vague AI Strategies

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Retail.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.1.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.3.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Ask for the system of record and the system of action in every workflow.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

Which test catches false MECE most quickly?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.4 · Concept lesson · 1 hr

The Pyramid Principle: Answer-First Communication

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Energy / utilities.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.3.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.4.
  • 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

  • Debrief simulations by replaying the question that changed the conversation.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

Where does the answer go in a Pyramid memo, and why?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.5 · Skill lab · 1 hr 30 min

Translating Business Language to Jira-Ready Specs

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in B2B SaaS sales ops.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.4.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.5.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Make learners write the decision owner and decision moment before problem-solving.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

What is the difference between an acceptance criterion and a definition of done?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.6 · Case study · 1 hr 15 min

Systems Thinking & Systems of Record

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Hospitality / property management.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.5.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.6.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

  • Force every recommendation into an answer-first sentence before allowing details.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

Why do FDEs always ask 'what is the System of Record' first?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.7 · Concept lesson · 45 min

Cost of Inaction & Anti-Gold-Plating

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Manufacturing maintenance.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.6.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.7.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

  • Ask for the system of record and the system of action in every workflow.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

Why is Cost of Inaction a better prioritization frame than ROI in early FDE work?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Lesson 2.8 · Case study · 1 hr 30 min

Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Clinical trial operations.

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.7.
  • Prepare a weak and strong example of the 2.8 Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment instructor artifact.
  • Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

  1. 11 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 16 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 36 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 18 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 9 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Debrief simulations by replaying the question that changed the conversation.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • 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 Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment.
  • The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
  • The output can be reviewed against Milestone 3.
  • The formative answer addresses: What is the failure mode that most often forces a step back across the Automation/Judgment boundary?

Formative check

What is the failure mode that most often forces a step back across the Automation/Judgment boundary?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject submissions that only summarize Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment 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 2.8 Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Agentic Thinking: Automate vs. Human Judgment 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.

Lesson 2.9 · Simulation · 2 hr 30 min

Course 2 Mastery: Live Discovery Simulation

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of discovery quality, business translation, decision framing, and judgment under ambiguity, anchored in a concrete field decision in Mixed (drawn randomly).

Before class

  • Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.1–2.8.
  • Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 2.9.
  • Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

Suggested flow

  1. 18 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
  2. 27 min - model the core concept or move
  3. 60 min - learner artifact production or simulation
  4. 30 min - critique against the evidence standard
  5. 15 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

  • Make learners write the decision owner and decision moment before problem-solving.
  • Ask learners to answer: What decision becomes clearer because the learner framed the problem this way?
  • Run timed role play with named roles, constraints, and a visible decision log.

Evidence to collect

  • Problem statement distinguishes symptom, root cause, decision owner, and business consequence.
  • Recommendation is answer-first and supported by evidence.
  • Decomposition exposes tradeoffs rather than relabeling the request.
  • Build-ready output includes acceptance criteria or next decision criteria.

Formative check

What three artifacts must leave every FDE discovery call?

Reject or remediate

  • Reject discovery notes that repeat sponsor language without testing causality.
  • Reject issue trees that are merely categories.
  • Reject specs without observable acceptance criteria.

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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

  • Have the learner run one more why against the highest-cost symptom.
  • Rewrite the recommendation in one answer-first sentence.
  • Convert one vague requirement into a testable acceptance criterion.

Debrief

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

Rubric for instructor review

  • Artifact quality: the output is inspectable, specific, and tied to the lesson objective.
  • Evidence discipline: the learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and proof.
  • Field judgment: the learner explains tradeoffs, constraints, and next decisions.
  • Communication: the learner can explain the artifact to a sponsor, teammate, and reviewer.

Course handoff

Course 2 feeds Milestone 2 and Milestone 3 by producing a defensible discovery brief, problem decomposition, and specification trail.

  • Learners should leave with a discovery brief, issue tree, answer-first memo, and spec draft.
  • Flag learners who still accept sponsor language at face value.
  • Carry forward the strongest discovery artifact into Course 4 lifecycle planning.