Page 4 of 8~116 min topic

Capstone Roadmap

Define slice acceptance before you chase features

This page advances one continuous project: a personal knowledge assistant that answers questions from approved notes with citations.

~14 min this pageQuality bar

1Learn the idea

Read

Review the outcome where it will be used

The quality bar for this project is not whether the output feels polished in a chat window. Review it in the conditions faced by a mentor reviewing whether a learner can make sound engineering trade-offs. Check completeness, fidelity to the supplied facts, accessibility, and whether the result helps the next person take the intended action. Use a simple score: pass, revise, or cannot judge yet.

a source-linked answer, a small held-out question set, trace records, and a milestone demo are the evidence set. Compare the output directly against them. A claim that seems likely but cannot be checked is an unknown, not a pass. Record one reason for every revision; that note will reveal whether the problem was missing context, an unclear request, or a constraint the tool cannot meet.

Read

A decision record for this scenario

Write a short record before you move on. For a personal knowledge assistant that answers questions from approved notes with citations, state the claim or choice under review, then name the evidence that supports it: a source-linked answer, a small held-out question set, trace records, and a milestone demo. Next, name what the evidence does not establish. This last line prevents a narrow test from becoming a broad promise. If another team member opened your record next month, they should be able to reproduce the review without trusting your memory.

Now make the trade-off visible. A mentor reviewing whether a learner can make sound engineering trade-offs may value speed, clarity, cost, control, or reassurance differently. Explain which of those mattered in the current version and why. Do not let a model choose the trade-off simply because it can produce a confident answer. The responsible owner decides whether the upside justifies the remaining uncertainty.

Finally, connect the decision to a next action. If the current evidence is enough, identify the smallest safe step forward. If it is not, request a specific source, approval, or test. The stop condition remains concrete: a citation cannot point to a source span, the evaluation set is missing, or a proposed feature has no user need. A documented pause is a successful outcome when it keeps a weak result from becoming a consequential one.

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Picture the moment before you begin work on a personal knowledge assistant that answers questions from approved notes with citations. The person depending on it is a mentor reviewing whether a learner can make sound engineering trade-offs. Write down one fact that must remain exact, one choice a person—not a model—must make, and one condition that would make you pause. Your three notes are a better starting point than a broad request for “something good.” In this topic, the result is a gated roadmap, a working vertical slice, and evidence from each milestone; it earns trust only when another person can see how it was made and where its limits are.

In the wild

See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. Can you name the user, artifact, and accountable reviewer?
2. Which supplied fact would most change the result if it were wrong?
3. What evidence makes the output reviewable?
4. What permission or risk boundary is specific to this job?
5. What does the workflow do when it cannot safely continue?

All responses are required.