Find my starting point ↗
← Your learning path
OPTIONAL INDEPENDENT CHALLENGE · ABOUT 20 MINUTES

Now do it
your way.

Your task is to prepare a small workshop proposal. There is no starter prompt: decide what context, structure and review instructions the AI needs. Use only the fictional information below.

The situation

A volunteer group wants a 90-minute indoor workshop for 12 people. The room-hire budget is 90 euros, and step-free access is required. A projector is optional.

FICTIONAL SOURCE PACK
V1. Willow Hall: 15 seats; 50 euros/hour; step-free access confirmed; projector included.
V2. Pine Studio: 12 seats; 40 euros/hour; step-free access not stated; no projector.
V3. Elm Room: 10 seats; 30 euros/hour; step-free access confirmed; projector included.
Assume proportional charging for this exercise. Only room hire is covered; extras and availability are unknown.

MEETING NOTES
T1. The group wants a proposal; no venue has been approved or booked.
T2. Riley: “I’ll request availability from Willow by Tuesday.” No meeting date is given.
T3. Casey: “I might be able to help with invitations.”
T4. Nobody has agreed who will collect RSVPs.
T5. Two people would prefer an evening event. No wider survey has been done.

Make three useful things

  1. A recommendation under 150 words, including a cost comparison and what remains unknown.
  2. A draft follow-up separating decisions, confirmed actions, suggestions and open questions.
  3. A reusable workflow card: required inputs, steps, checks, stop rule and human approval.

Suggested time: 3 minutes to frame the task, 7 to draft, 7 to verify and revise, 3 to save and reflect. Use a notes app to keep your artifacts; Sposable does not upload or grade them.

Review before revealing the example

Score each dimension 0 (missing or wrong), 1 (partial) or 2 (clear and correct): evidence fidelity; arithmetic and constraints; handling unknowns; audience/action clarity; workflow reusability.

A recommended practice target is 8/10 with no critical error. Invented approval, a fabricated accessibility claim, a wrong decisive cost or an invented owner is a critical error: fix it and review again, regardless of the total. This is a self-review rubric, not certification.

Reveal the answer key and reasoning ↓

Willow costs 75 euros (1.5 × 50), Pine 60 euros (1.5 × 40) and Elm 45 euros (1.5 × 30). Willow is the best-supported provisional option: it fits 12 people, the room-hire budget and the known access requirement. Pine’s access remains unknown; Elm is too small. Extras and availability need confirmation before committing.

No venue has been approved. Riley has committed to requesting Willow’s availability by Tuesday; the calendar date is unknown. Casey’s possible help is not a confirmed action. An RSVP owner is missing. Two expressed preferences do not establish that the group generally prefers evenings.

A defensible recommendation: “Provisionally choose Willow, subject to availability and total-cost confirmation. Its room hire is 75 euros, capacity is 15 and step-free access is confirmed. Pine could be considered if access is confirmed, but Elm cannot accommodate 12. No booking is approved yet.”

A suitable follow-up asks for the missing calendar date, RSVP owner and event timing, rather than assigning them. A reusable card defines the sources and constraints, checks calculations and commitments, stops when a hard requirement is unknown, and requires a person to approve any communication or booking.

One week later: the real test

Choose a permitted, low-stakes task from your own work. Use one workflow without the lesson open. Record the output, what you corrected, where you needed help and whether you would reuse it. Don’t claim time saved unless you have a credible comparison and include review time.

Keep the workbook ↓