Course 4 - Lifecycle and Deployment

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Field operations.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.9.
• Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 4.1.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

• Open every lesson by naming the lifecycle stage and exit evidence.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• 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 three classes of friction point block enterprise deployments most often?

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.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach The Three Whys of Systems of Record through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Public sector services.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 2.6, 4.1.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 4.2 The Three Whys of Systems of Record 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 instrument before they improve the interface.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• 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 Three Whys of Systems of Record.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 1.
• The formative answer addresses: What is the single most common reason a project fails the Day 2 question?

Formative check

What is the single most common reason a project fails the Day 2 question?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize The Three Whys of Systems of Record 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 4.2 The Three Whys of Systems of Record instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in The Three Whys of Systems of Record 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 problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.2.
• Prepare a weak and strong problem framing, sponsor cognition, decomposition, and business-to-build translation artifact for 4.3.
• 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

• Use red-team prompts as design inputs, not as late-stage criticism.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• 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

Why is the scope-out list more contentious than the scope-in list?

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.

Teaching intent

Use this lesson to teach explicit interface contracts, permissions, schemas, and failure behavior through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Tax compliance.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 3.7, 4.3.
• Prepare a weak and strong explicit interface contracts, permissions, schemas, and failure behavior artifact for 4.4.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

• Require every demo to state known limits and the decision it supports.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

Evidence to collect

• Interface contract names inputs, outputs, auth, permissions, and error behavior.
• Tool or API boundaries are separated from model reasoning.
• The learner shows at least one failure response and recovery path.
• The contract can be handed to another builder without hidden assumptions.

Formative check

Why do FDEs instrument before they polish?

Reject or remediate

• Reject tool calls with vague schemas or unbounded permissions.
• Reject API designs that hide authentication and error behavior.
• Reject architecture that cannot explain what happens when a dependency fails.

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 explicit interface contracts, permissions, schemas, and failure behavior artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the explicit interface contracts, permissions, schemas, and failure behavior tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Rewrite the interface as a request/response contract.
• Add one denied or malformed request case.
• Mark the human approval point for any consequential action.

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 LLM Observability Foundations through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.4.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 4.5 LLM Observability Foundations 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

• Open every lesson by naming the lifecycle stage and exit evidence.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• 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 LLM Observability Foundations.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 4.
• The formative answer addresses: Which observability pillar most often surprises a traditional SRE?

Formative check

Which observability pillar most often surprises a traditional SRE?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize LLM Observability Foundations 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 4.5 LLM Observability Foundations instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in LLM Observability Foundations 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 pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Customer support.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.5.
• Prepare a weak and strong evaluation design, golden datasets, cut scores, and CI gates artifact for 4.6.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

• Make learners instrument before they improve the interface.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Demonstrate one small move, then shift quickly into learner artifact production and review.

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 metric most often shifts after a model upgrade with no other change?

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Legal research.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.6.
• Prepare a weak and strong risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact for 4.7.
• 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

• Use red-team prompts as design inputs, not as late-stage criticism.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Have learners find the decision point, the missing evidence, and the consequence of a poor choice.

Evidence to collect

• Risk statement names user harm, data boundary, and operational consequence.
• Test cases include normal, edge, adversarial, and policy-sensitive examples.
• Mitigations are mapped to retrieval, prompt, tool, policy, or human-review controls.
• Learner states what must be escalated or refused.

Formative check

What separates retrieval from grounding?

Reject or remediate

• Reject generic safety language without concrete controls.
• Reject red-team notes that do not change the design.
• Reject compliance claims that are not tied to a workflow or data boundary.

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner convert one risk into a test case and a control.
• Require before/after evidence for one mitigation.
• Ask who reviews the exception and where the audit trail lives.

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Financial services.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 3.10, 4.6.
• Prepare a weak and strong risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact for 4.8.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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

• Require every demo to state known limits and the decision it supports.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Reserve most time for build, critique, revision, and final defense.

Evidence to collect

• Risk statement names user harm, data boundary, and operational consequence.
• Test cases include normal, edge, adversarial, and policy-sensitive examples.
• Mitigations are mapped to retrieval, prompt, tool, policy, or human-review controls.
• Learner states what must be escalated or refused.

Formative check

Which class of red-team finding is hardest to mitigate without redesigning tools?

Reject or remediate

• Reject generic safety language without concrete controls.
• Reject red-team notes that do not change the design.
• Reject compliance claims that are not tied to a workflow or data boundary.

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner convert one risk into a test case and a control.
• Require before/after evidence for one mitigation.
• Ask who reviews the exception and where the audit trail lives.

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Healthcare.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.8.
• Prepare a weak and strong risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact for 4.9.
• 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

• Open every lesson by naming the lifecycle stage and exit evidence.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Model the concept with a concrete operational example, then ask learners to apply it to a new scenario.

Evidence to collect

• Risk statement names user harm, data boundary, and operational consequence.
• Test cases include normal, edge, adversarial, and policy-sensitive examples.
• Mitigations are mapped to retrieval, prompt, tool, policy, or human-review controls.
• Learner states what must be escalated or refused.

Formative check

Why are prompt/response retention defaults the most common compliance miss in LLM systems?

Reject or remediate

• Reject generic safety language without concrete controls.
• Reject red-team notes that do not change the design.
• Reject compliance claims that are not tied to a workflow or data boundary.

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 risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the risk controls, grounding evidence, adversarial tests, and compliance rails tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner convert one risk into a test case and a control.
• Require before/after evidence for one mitigation.
• Ask who reviews the exception and where the audit trail lives.

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 Change Management & Technical Enablement through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Retail operations.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.9.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 4.10 Change Management & Technical Enablement 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

• Make learners instrument before they improve the interface.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• 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 Change Management & Technical Enablement.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 6.
• The formative answer addresses: What single adoption signal would survive your departure as the FDE?

Formative check

What single adoption signal would survive your departure as the FDE?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize Change Management & Technical Enablement 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 4.10 Change Management & Technical Enablement instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Change Management & Technical Enablement 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 partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in Pick one.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.10.
• Prepare a weak and strong partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact for 4.11.
• Identify the exact evidence field, threshold, or decision point learners must defend.

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 red-team prompts as design inputs, not as late-stage criticism.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Run timed role play with named roles, constraints, and a visible decision log.

Evidence to collect

• Partner artifact names each party contribution, incentive, risk, owner, and decision cadence.
• SCOPE or equivalent qualification is evidence-backed, not relationship-based.
• Joint value proposition ties to a customer problem and proof path.
• Pilot plan includes scope, timeline, economics, exit criteria, and escalation.

Formative check

What is the first sentence of an FDE demo?

Reject or remediate

• Reject partnership plans that describe logos instead of operating commitments.
• Reject JVPs that describe both companies but not the customer outcome.
• Reject pilots without owner, cadence, or kill 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 partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability artifact and ask them to repair the weakest evidence field.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend the partner qualification, joint value, operating cadence, and pilot accountability tradeoff against a skeptical sponsor, reviewer, or operator.

Remediation path

• Have the learner write the partner contribution ledger before benefits.
• Add one kill criterion and one escalation path.
• Rewrite the JVP from the customer sponsor viewpoint.

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 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint through the course lens of pilot scoping, instrumentation, evaluation, grounding, security, change management, and demo discipline, anchored in a concrete field decision in the selected field context.

Before class

• Open the trainee lesson and confirm prerequisites: 4.1–4.11.
• Prepare a weak and strong example of the 4.12 Course 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint instructor artifact.
• Choose the exact pause point where learners must show evidence before discussion continues.

Suggested flow

1. 58 min - frame the field problem and evidence target
2. 86 min - model the core concept or move
3. 192 min - learner artifact production or simulation
4. 96 min - critique against the evidence standard
5. 48 min - exit ticket, risk note, and next handoff

Live facilitation

• Require every demo to state known limits and the decision it supports.
• Ask learners to answer: What would make this pilot trustworthy enough to move to the next lifecycle stage?
• Reserve most time for build, critique, revision, and final defense.

Evidence to collect

• The artifact names the field decision connected to Course 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint.
• The learner separates claims, assumptions, observations, and evidence.
• The output can be reviewed against Milestone 5.
• The formative answer addresses: Which artifact in the evidence package is most often missing in junior FDE work?

Formative check

Which artifact in the evidence package is most often missing in junior FDE work?

Reject or remediate

• Reject submissions that only summarize Course 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint 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 4.12 Course 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint instructor artifact and ask them to improve the evidence column.

Stretch: Ask learners to defend one tradeoff in Course 4 Mastery: Diagnosis-to-Demo Sprint 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.