Your working materials

My AI-fluency workbook

Use fictional training material only. Download your notes before navigating away or closing. This is an editable local workbook, not a submission form or verified completion record.

Blank text workbook

Entries stay only in this open tab. Nothing is sent or automatically saved.

Use short notes, not essays. Copy these boxes into one text document. Complete one per module and revise it when you learn something new. Do not submit real client data or secrets.

Learner identifier: · Course edition: 2026.09-ai-fluency-1 · Route: approved tool / simulation

If a tool was used, record product, displayed model if available, date and permitted environment. Write “not displayed” rather than inventing a model version. Record only the input/output excerpts needed to explain your work.

A01 — First useful result

Task and intended reader

Three-row action note: action / owner / due date or “not agreed” / source

One thing I corrected: · One thing AI cannot decide from these notes

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A02 — Safe-use decision

Proposed task: · Input category and permission evidence

Environment/account: · Allowed sources: · Allowed actions

What I must not upload or connect: · Who checks the result

Decision: proceed with synthetic material / ask for approval / do manually — my choice

Reason and escalation contact or unresolved owner

Stop condition — when I must stop or ask for help

Fallback — permitted manual or simulation alternative if I cannot proceed

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A03 — A prompt that improved

Initial prompt

Problem found in the result

Revised prompt, with only useful context and constraints

One output extract before and after, or labelled simulation

Check against source and remaining uncertainty

Reusable part of my method: · Case context that must change next time

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A04 — Source-linked findings

Scroll the table sideways if needed. Keyboard: focus the table area and use the Left/Right arrow keys.

A04 — Source-linked findings — table 1
Topic	Checked finding	Source and location	Version/status	What is uncertain or conflicting?	My check
Service period
Monthly charge
Support commitment
Weekend support

Transformations used, such as pasted extract or OCR

Two-event chronology — event 1: date / event / source / what it does not establish

Two-event chronology — event 2: date / event / source / what it does not establish

One missing-document request, its purpose and the next reviewer

T01 exception check — corrected summary and the source condition I preserved

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A05 — Verification record

Question and proposed proposition

Jurisdiction, relevant date, source type and publisher

Exact title and locator; version/publication date; access date

Route: A05-S1 actual statutory inspection / another bounded actual inspection / source inaccessible / simulation only — my choice

Source URL or authorised copy identifier, exact provisions I personally inspected and access date

What the source supports: · What it does not establish

Later-law or treatment checks still needed

Decision: usable for this limited proposition / revise / do not rely / escalate — my choice

A05-S1 proposition A: supported / not supported / not checked; source-based explanation

A05-S1 proposition B: supported / not supported / not checked; source-based explanation

Inspection evidence and remaining limits, without copying unnecessary personal or copyrighted material

Observation status: method practice only / self-reported actual inspection / reviewed actual inspection — my choice

Reviewer name, observation or evidence-review date, evidence inspected and feedback, if actually provided

Do not record observed source verification without a completed actual inspection and a named review of its evidence. A live AI answer, an access attempt or reading the course's model explanation is insufficient. A self-reported inspection remains labelled self-reported until reviewed.

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A06 — A draft worth reviewing

Internal update, maximum 150 words

Two material changes I checked

Support comparison, line 1 — what acknowledgement within four business hours promises

Support comparison, line 2 — what restoration within two hours would promise

Support comparison, line 3 — why this changes meaning rather than style

T02 person-assumption check — neutral rewrite and the unsupported inference I removed

Fee calculation, visible inputs and excluded items

Source references: · Release status and reviewer

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A07 — Reusable workflow card

Name and version: · Owner and review date

Use when: · Do not use when

Permitted inputs and required source metadata

Steps and expected output

Checks, stop conditions and approval boundary

Ordinary-case test and result

Missing/conflicting-input test and result

Status: paper blueprint / tested as a prompt / tested installed skill — my choice

Only choose the last status if it was actually installed and observed in an approved training environment. This course does not install a skill for you.

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A08 — Connection decision

What result needs connected access?

Source service and account/workspace: · Exact synthetic folder/files

Read permissions: · Write/action permissions

Provider, data destination/retention questions and approval evidence

Smallest viable scope or manual alternative

How to disconnect/revoke, who can do it, and deletion questions

Prompt-injection response: · Decision and unresolved questions

Proposed harmless single-file test, expected result and who must verify the actual configuration

Test status: planned only / simulated / actually performed; evidence and date if performed

No actual OAuth connection is required. If permissions cannot be limited or verified, select the manual or simulation route.

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A09 — Workflow and evaluation

Input → draft/extract → source check → human review → permitted handover

Scroll the table sideways if needed. Keyboard: focus the table area and use the Left/Right arrow keys.

A09 — Workflow and evaluation — table 2
Test	Expected result before running	Observed result or labelled simulation	Correction / stop
Signed baseline
C07 unsigned changed price
C06 embedded instruction

Time spent in minutes: setup + generation + verification + correction + handover = total

Use an explicit handover value, including 0 — not applicable when no handover occurred. If any required timing is unknown, record total not fully measured ; do not silently count unknown time as zero. Record whether timings are measured or a supplied fictional example

Comparable manual task and time, if actually observed

Material errors before/after review: · Missing fields: · Release blocker

Named reviewer or unresolved review owner: · Stop conditions: · Manual fallback

If no comparable manual timing exists, write “not measured”; do not claim a saving. Three familiar examples are a practice test, not a reliability benchmark.

Peer or solo participation check and my response

A10 — My next 30 days

One recurring, permitted task: · Trigger/frequency

Current difficulty and a quality baseline

Week 1: one synthetic or approved low-risk attempt and a review

Week 2: revise the prompt/workflow from feedback

Week 3: repeat on a second appropriate example and share the method, not client facts

Week 4: review checked quality, full time cost, support needs and whether to continue

Supervisor/peer support and fallback if unavailable

Stop rule and next review date

Optional Esheria task brief: research or workflow goal ; sources ; coverage/access checks ; expected output ; human review ; portable alternative .

Next learning direction and why it fits my legal background

Peer or solo participation check and my response

The plan is written in AI10. Executing 30 days of workplace practice is optional additional work, not hidden inside the eight-hour core.

My learning record

I can now

I still need help with

Record each capability independently; do not infer live or observed use from course completion.

Verification method — not attempted / practised in simulation / self-reported actual use / reviewed observation; evidence

Live prompting — not attempted / simulated / self-reported live use / reviewed observation; tool, task and evidence

Actual authority inspection — not attempted / access gap / self-reported inspection / reviewed observation; A05-S1 or equivalent record

Installed skill — not attempted / blueprint only / self-reported installed use / reviewed observation; exact skill/version and test evidence

Connected read — not attempted / paper walkthrough / self-reported connected use / reviewed observation; permitted scope and evidence

For each reviewed observation, give the capability, reviewer name, review date, evidence examined and feedback

If there is no named review, retain the self-study or self-reported label. This workbook and the learner website cannot certify an observation or professional competence.

Final-practice feedback and correction

Feedback source: learner-safe worked solution / named human reviewer; date and remaining questions

I will describe this accurately as fictional course practice, not client experience or an accredited professional qualification.