Activate Your Agency
One workflow, seven sections. You fill this in as you go — each section feeds the next. Your work saves in this browser automatically.
Section 1 · Your starting point
Choose one workflow and capture how it runs today.
Keep the decision, reason and confidence you recorded when you first saw the report in the opening lesson. If you have not done that yet, read the original report below and record your first answer before looking at the sources or worked example. Keep that answer as your baseline; record any change under "One detail that mattered".
This is a fictional project-update case. No workplace AI or private data is needed. Use this same report and the four source records below throughout the Workcard.
Project Update — Customer Onboarding Improvement
Week ending Friday 15 August · Prepared for the steering group
Status: On track
Progress
Integration testing is complete across all three regions. Content migration is 80% complete. Legal review of the data-classification approach is proceeding as routine.
Risks
No material risks to delivery. The onboarding content workstream is running approximately one week behind, owing to reviewer availability.
Dates
Delivery is confirmed for 28 August.
Recommended next actions
Move Priya Raman to the onboarding content workstream for two weeks to recover the schedule. Follow-up task prepared for approval.
The report offers Send report and Create tasks. These are fictional actions, not buttons to use here.
Delivery dashboard: Status: On track. Risk field: "Legal approval outstanding — data classification not agreed."
Delivery plan: "Target: 28 August. Awaiting supplier confirmation."
Meeting notes, 12 August: "Delivery lead flagged: moving Priya off integration leaves a security review gap. No decision taken."
Resourcing notes: "Onboarding content approx. 1 week behind. Priya Raman has prior onboarding experience." No recommendation of any kind.
Now that you have seen the four sources, note one detail that changed your mind — or one that confirms you were right.
If you are choosing your own, it works best when it: happens at least monthly; has three or more real steps; affects someone other than you; needs your judgement somewhere; lets AI contribute to at least two steps; and can be described without anything confidential, personal or sensitive.
Describe the shape of your work using roles and document types. Do not enter confidential, personal or sensitive details in this card or an AI tool.
Stuck? Any of these will do: preparing a project update, drafting a recommendation, pulling together feedback, planning a meeting, comparing options, or producing the first version of a document you write regularly.
Three lines. Describe what actually happens, not what should happen.
If your own workflow fails any of these, switch to the supplied case. That is not a lesser path; it is the one the worked examples are built around.
Revise and carry forward. Look at your three baseline lines. If one is vague — "AI helps me write it" — make it specific: what does it actually produce, and what do you actually do to it afterwards? Section 2 will Frame this same piece of work.
One person's original answer, followed by the detail they noticed. Your first answer need not match it.
| Original decision and reason | Approve now — it read as finished, and the deadline was in fifteen minutes. |
|---|---|
| Original confidence | Medium |
| Detail that mattered | The delivery plan said "Target: 28 August. Awaiting supplier confirmation." The report said "confirmed." |
| Workflow | The Friday steering-group update for the onboarding project. |
| AI currently does… | Pulls the four sources together and writes the whole draft, including the recommendation. |
| I decide… | Whether to send it. In practice, that has meant skimming it. |
| I normally check… | Nothing systematically. I notice things if they look odd. |
Section 2 · Frame
Define the result, standard, judgement, people and sources — before you decide what AI should do.
Frame is about purpose, and this is how you find it. You cannot say what work is for until you know who it is for. Name the person first, then work backwards. The person is the route; the result is the purpose.
The person or group who has to decide or do something once they have it. Not everyone who receives a copy.
The call that is waiting on this. If nothing is waiting on it, that is worth knowing now.
The result is not the thing you hand over. The thing you hand over is a report, a deck, a summary — that is the deliverable, and it is the easy part. The result is what becomes possible for the person above once they have it.
Writing a task in the result line. "Draft the pilot summary" is a task — it describes what you produce. "Give the regional managers enough to decide whether to keep the pilot running" is a result — it describes what somebody can do afterwards. If your line only names what you produce, add what someone can decide or do because of it.
The standard is what has to hold no matter who or what produces the work. The judgement is the call that carries a consequence.
Most people save the standard until the end, run out of time, and write something vague. Answer it straight after the result, while you are still thinking about what the work is for. It is the line nobody writes down, and it is the line that would have caught Friday.
Question 1 names who the work is for. Here, name whose information the work depends on. A person may appear in both lists. You will need this list again in Own, where you decide who has to act with you.
Be specific enough that you could actually contact or open them.
One or two limits. In the worked case: do not turn a target date into a confirmed one, and move a person only after their manager agrees.
About the reflection questions. Each asks you to look back at your own thinking. Nobody marks them. You can revisit these answers if they help you choose a handoff to strengthen in Section 7.
Revise and carry forward. Improve one line — whichever is weakest. Usually it is the standard. Section 3 uses your result, standard, judgement, people and sources to decide what AI does, what it may only suggest, and what you must decide yourself.
The completed weekly-report Frame.
| Who this work is for | The steering group, Monday morning. Six people in a room. |
|---|---|
| The decision they have to make | Can we still believe in this launch, and what do we need to change? |
| Result (what they can do once they have read it) | Give the steering group an accurate basis for deciding whether the launch is still credible and what needs to change. Not the result: "write the Friday update." That is the deliverable. |
| Standard | Anything nobody has confirmed is written as not yet confirmed. Anything still being decided says so. Disagreement that could change the decision stays in. And anything we recommend shows what it's based on. |
| Judgement a person must make | Whether the project is genuinely on track, and what should change because of that. |
| People | Legal owner (classification), delivery lead (28 August), resource manager (Priya). |
| Sources | Dashboard, delivery plan, meeting notes, resourcing notes. |
| Constraints | Friday deadline. Keep the date as a target until the delivery lead confirms it using supplier confirmation. Move a person only after their manager agrees. |
Section 3 · Delegate
Decide what AI does, what it suggests, what a person decides, and where AI stops.
Choose one step, not the whole workflow. Pick the step where a wrong recommendation, a wrong action, or a wrong assumption would actually affect a decision or another person.
Be specific enough that someone else could check whether it happened.
Use the permission and scope agreed for this work: who authorised AI to act, and which sources may it use? Name a reviewer who can explain the decision, stop or change the work, and answer for it.
Compare your entries with the worked example in this section. Keep both open while you ask:
Fix the one thing most likely to be wrong. Then allocate the remaining major steps of your workflow the same way — quickly, without repeating the full write-up for each one.
Carry forward. Section 4 turns this, together with Frame, into a Working brief AI can actually follow.
The completed weekly-report Delegate section, in the order you will fill it in.
| 1. The step | Sending the finished report to the steering group. |
|---|---|
| 2. Placed as | Human decides — it commits the project to a date and a staffing change. |
| 3. Stops before | Sending the report or creating tasks. The project lead checks the report and decides whether the next action may proceed. Unconfirmed or disputed information remains explicitly marked. |
| 3. Reviewed or decided by | Project lead — the report. Legal owner — the classification. |
| 5. The remaining steps | AI does: gather the approved sources; draft a summary that keeps the uncertainty clear. AI suggests; a person decides: suggest the legal classification; the legal owner decides. Human decides: the delivery lead confirms the date using supplier confirmation; the resource manager decides the staffing response, with the affected person's manager's agreement before anyone moves. |
Section 4 · Working brief
Put Frame and Delegate into practice through Goal, Guardrails and Proof — then test it.
They do not map one to one, so check this before you start. Your first two lines — the result and the standard — both go into Goal. Your third line, the thing that must not happen, becomes Guardrails, together with the stop point and decision owner from Delegate. Proof is the new question in this section: use the named sources you gathered in Frame to say what evidence and uncertainty the output must show.
A Guardrail stops work. Proof specifies what evidence and uncertainty the work must show.
Use the brief with a safe, real piece of AI-assisted work, or compare it against the supplied case output. For example: put your Goal, Guardrails and Proof in front of the request you would normally make, run it once, and keep whatever comes back.
Supplied-case route: compare your brief with the original report and four source records in Section 1. The improved report shown in the video models a correction; do not assume it still contains the original date error.
Name it so you can find it again. This is the piece of work Verify checks in Section 5, and the gap you find below comes out of it. Without a named output, both are guesswork.
Name a specific place where the output does not match the brief. A note like "needs work", "not quite right" or "could be stronger" does not count. Each of those names your reaction to the output, not the thing that is wrong with it. Name the thing: which line, and what is missing or overstated in it.
Name the line, what the source says, and exactly what should change. Write the sentence you would send back, tied to the missing Goal, Guardrail or Proof requirement.
Revise and carry forward. Improve the weakest line — usually Guardrails or Proof, since Goal is often the easiest to get right. Section 5 verifies your named output.
The completed weekly-report brief, in the order you will fill it in.
| 1. Intended result | The steering group can decide whether the launch date still holds. |
|---|---|
| 1. Most important standard | Nothing is shown as settled when nobody has confirmed it. |
| 1. Must not happen | A target date going out as a confirmed one. |
| 2. Goal (from the first two lines) | Prepare Friday's update so the steering group can decide whether the launch date remains credible. |
| 2. Guardrails (from the third line) | Preserve legal blockers, tentative dates and relevant disagreement. Do not make staffing recommendations, send the report, or create tasks. |
| 2. Proof (the new one) | Use the named legal, delivery and resourcing notes. Mark unconfirmed claims and show the source for each commitment. |
| 3. Output used | The original AI-generated weekly report in Section 1, used as the supplied comparison output. No new generation is required. |
| 4. The gap | Its Dates line says "Delivery is confirmed for 28 August." The delivery plan says supplier confirmation is pending. The line fails the Guardrail on tentative dates and the Proof requirement. |
| 5. The correction | The report says "Delivery is confirmed for 28 August"; the delivery plan says "Target: 28 August. Awaiting supplier confirmation." Change the report to "Target 28 August — unconfirmed, owner: delivery lead." |
Section 5 · Verify
Choose one check, do it, and record what the evidence supports.
Not the whole output at once. One part that could change how someone uses or acts on this.
Fit and tone can receive Quick review when an error would not change a decision or action, or cause meaningful harm. Otherwise, continue to question 2. A fact, number, date or commitment someone will act on is at least a Source check.
If your organisation's policy or the law requires a particular check, use that check. It takes priority over this decision aid.
AI can help you check its work, but it must not be the only reviewer of consequential output it produced.
This is the step people describe rather than do, so here is what each one looks like as an action.
If the source or person you need is not available, hold the result rather than inventing confirmation.
Hold is a real answer. Use it when the evidence has not come back. It is not the same as reject, which means the evidence came back and did not support the claim.
Criterion 3 is the one that fails most often. A check that cannot resolve the concern feels like work and settles nothing. If yours cannot, either strengthen it — go to the source instead of your memory, or to a person instead of the source — or write hold and name what would settle it.
Carry forward. Section 6 acts on the decision you recorded about this same item, and asks what human capability and coordinated action are needed.
The main lab route: check the original report's legal/status claim. The delivery-date route below is a separate, valid alternative; keep track of which item you chose.
| 1. AI produced… | "Status: On track" and "Legal review of the data-classification approach is proceeding as routine." |
|---|---|
| 1. If this is wrong or unsuitable… | The steering group could approve a launch with an unresolved legal blocker. |
| 2. Check chosen, and why | Independent review. A legal classification is outside the project lead's authority to decide; the legal owner must answer. |
| 3. What the check found | The dashboard says "Legal approval outstanding — data classification not agreed." The specific question is with the legal owner; their answer has not come back. |
| 4. The evidence supports | Hold — do not send the report as cleared while that answer is outstanding. |
| 4. One thing still uncertain | Whether the legal classification clears or blocks the launch. The legal owner decides. |
Alternative worked example: checking the delivery date
| 1. AI produced… | "Delivery is confirmed for 28 August." |
|---|---|
| 1. If this is wrong or unsuitable… | The steering group plans around a date nobody has agreed to, and the project has made a commitment it cannot keep. |
| 2. Check chosen, and why | Source check. An error would change what the group decides, but the matter is not sensitive or outside my competence — and there is a document that settles it. |
| 3. What the check found | The delivery plan says "Target: 28 August. Awaiting supplier confirmation." The date is a working target. |
| 4. The evidence supports | Revise — the claim becomes "28 August is the working target; confirmation is pending." |
| 4. One thing still uncertain | Whether the supplier will confirm the target date. |
Section 6 · Own
Protect one capability, act, involve the right people, and change the workflow.
Own begins where decisions have consequences. It does not mean doing everything alone, or accepting blame for the whole system.
Choose one capability. Would you need it if your AI assistant were unavailable, wrong or not allowed to help?
Start from Use, Revise, Hold or Reject in your Verify entry. Name what you will do to that same item today, within your authority. If someone else must agree first, put their decision under the next entry.
Start from the People you listed in Frame — the ones who knew what you did not. Most of them reappear here, now with something to do rather than something to tell you. Then add anyone who controls the workflow itself, such as whoever could change the approval step.
One line per person: [Person or role] — I need them to [specific action]. Include them for their knowledge, authority or control; a job title without a reason does not pass.
Write both parts: What changes… and Who can make that change…. Name one observable change to how the work runs, not a resolution to be more careful.
Carry forward. Section 7 brings Frame, Delegate, Verify and Own together in one rule you can actually use.
The completed weekly-report Own section.
| Human capability to keep | Being able to read the four sources myself and spot where they disagree. |
|---|---|
| Action I will take now | Keep the report on hold while the legal owner's answer is outstanding. The question was sent during Verify; do not count sending it again as a new action. |
| Who must act with me, and who answers for what | Legal owner — decides whether the classification issue clears or blocks the launch. Delivery lead — confirms the date, and says what moving somebody off integration does to the security review. Resource manager — decides whether Priya moves. Sponsor — sets the rule that reports follow. |
| What we will change next time | The report template gets an "unconfirmed or disputed" field that cannot be left blank. The sponsor can make that change. |
If you chose the date/Revise route in Verify: change "confirmed" back to "Target 28 August — unconfirmed, owner: delivery lead." The delivery lead must obtain confirmation. Correcting this date does not clear the separate legal blocker or authorise sending the whole report.
Section 7 · Next-use rule
One recognisable moment, one specific action, before a consequence.
Trace one item, repair a weak handoff, then write and place one rule for next time.
Choose a claim, date, number or recommendation from your card where being wrong would change what somebody else does.
Use your existing entries. Write one brief line for each move, keeping the same item throughout.
Check your Working brief if a Frame or Delegate decision never reached the AI instruction.
Read the four lines in order. Find where a decision failed to carry through into the next move. You can look back at your reflections if that helps.
Repair that entry on your card before writing the rule.
Passing: Verify says "Revise the date" → Own restores the target wording and asks the delivery lead to confirm it. Failing: Verify says "Revise" → Own says "Be more careful next time." It never says whether the date was changed.
Supplied-case learners: adapt the repaired handoff to a safe recurring task of your own and name it below. Keep your trace about the case; you do not need to complete another six sections.
Turn the repair into one sentence: When [recognisable moment], before [consequence], I will [specific action].
A moment you could notice: a word changing, a screen or a message arriving.
The point before someone relies on or acts on the work.
One small action within your authority, such as opening the source and reading the line.
Put the rule in your prompt template, checklist, task reminder or document header.
Plan one real use during the next seven days. If the moment is unlikely to happen in that time, rehearse it once instead: open the work, find the place the rule applies, and run it.
Your trace
Your rule
If the moment is hard to recognise or the action too big, narrow the moment or shorten the action.
Finish now: your rule is written, placed where you will see it, and ready for one use. Save or print a copy if you work across devices.
Leave these two fields until you have tried the rule. Record what happened, including a missed moment, then make one adjustment and try again.
A missed moment is information about the rule. Make the when more specific, make the action smaller, or move the reminder where you will see it.
One delivery-date claim, traced through the card into a next-use rule.
| Frame | The steering group needs an accurate basis for its launch decision. The standard keeps anything unconfirmed explicitly unconfirmed. |
|---|---|
| Delegate | The delivery lead confirms the date using supplier confirmation. AI stops before sending the report or creating tasks; the project lead decides what may proceed. |
| Working brief | Goal supports the launch decision; Guardrails preserve tentative dates; Proof names the delivery plan and requires uncertainty to remain visible. This carries Frame and Delegate into the AI instruction, not a fifth framework move. |
| Verify | Source check: the delivery plan says "Target: 28 August. Awaiting supplier confirmation." Decision: Revise the report's confirmed-date claim. |
| Own | Restore "Target 28 August — unconfirmed, owner: delivery lead." The delivery lead confirms it. Keep the whole report on hold for the separate legal answer. Ask the sponsor to add an "unconfirmed or disputed" field to the template. |
| Weakest handoff and repair | The target-to-confirmed change was not caught until Verify. Carry the original source wording into the draft and require a source check before any commitment goes out. |
| Rule | When an AI draft turns a target into a commitment, before I send it, I will check it against the original source. |
| Where | In the weekly-report template header. |
| Next use | Next Friday, when preparing the update. If the target-to-confirmed change does not occur, rehearse the rule using the supplied date claim. |