Work a full example

The project is to run one two-week role experiment and publish a concise case study showing problem, process, judgment, and learning. The user is a teacher exploring product, operations, data, engineering, or governance work. Definition of done: the intended action is clear, the candidate uses approved evidence, blocking safety checks pass, and another person can reproduce the key result.

Stage 1: prepare

Create the job card and collect energizing tasks, transferable skills, constraints, current job descriptions, skill gaps, people to interview, and a project question. Remove or replace prohibited material: remove employer-confidential examples, student data, contact details, and sensitive employment history before sharing career materials. Add one ordinary case, one boundary case, and one hostile or misleading case. Record unknowns instead of filling them with plausible guesses.

Stage 2: draft

I enjoy explaining hard ideas, interviewing people, and editing. Skills: classroom teaching, spreadsheets, basic research. Constraint: four hours weekly and no career break. Suggest three role-family experiments. For each: transferable evidence, one gap, a two-week portfolio artifact, and one professional to learn from. Do not predict salary or hiring probability without current sources.

The first candidate should be Three bounded experiments across AI education, product operations, and evaluation, each producing evidence rather than promising a job outcome. In this worked run, imagine it also exhibits one realistic defect from this set: chasing trendy titles; fabricated salary claims; treating course completion as evidence; ignoring domain expertise; building projects no target role values. Do not hide the defect. Mark the exact criterion it violates and decide whether the cause belongs to context, instruction, model capability, or the surrounding process.

Stage 3: repair narrowly

Issue a targeted revision:

Revise only the failed criterion identified below.
Preserve all verified content and the original output contract.
Do not add facts or assets.
Return the corrected artifact plus a one-line change note.
Failed criterion: [paste criterion and evidence]

A narrow repair keeps the review surface understandable. If the model cannot repair without new authoritative information, pause and obtain that information.

Stage 4: verify and release

Now collect five current job descriptions per path, count repeated requirements, interview a practitioner, inspect current labor sources, and evaluate whether the work itself fits. Record pass/fail evidence for each criterion and have the named reviewer make the release decision. Titles change faster than durable work. Optimize for evidence that you can perform a useful task, explain trade-offs, and learn from feedback. Save limitations in language the audience can understand.

The durable deliverable is not only the final result. It is a career experiment portfolio with job-description matrix, skill evidence map, project, practitioner notes, and next-decision memo. Write what surprised you, which check found it, what you changed, and which control should become the default. A clean retrospective distinguishes a prompt improvement from a data, tool, or policy change.