Month 1 · Learn to verify before acting with AI
Four weeks of reading and practice to distinguish sources, drafts, checks and actions. Weeks are relative self-study blocks: adapt your pace. No live classes, mandatory attendance or guaranteed completion time are announced.
This is the full Month 1 learning resource, not the entire twelve-month course. The four exercises form one monthly activity M01. Reading, personal marks and self-scores do not verify academic completion.
Complete case source: sheet F1
Everything in this case is invented. A fictional stationery shop answers an inquiry for two A5 notebooks and three HB pencils. F1 is the only current sheet within this exercise; it is not APEX business data or a real commercial catalog.
| Reference | Fictional product | Unit price COP | Stock on the sheet |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | A5 notebook | 8,000 | Unknown |
| P2 | HB pencil | 1,200 | 6 units in this case |
| P3 | Folder | 2,500 | 4 units in this case |
Delivery, opening hours and reservation: unknown/not performed. No tools are connected to reserve, send or publish. An older sheet F0 listed P1 at COP 9,000; it is retained only to practice finding obsolete data. The example reviewer is a fictional role, not a person assigned to the program.
Week 1 · What you know, assume and need to check
Goal: Treat an AI reply as a draft that needs evidence.
A writing tool can reorganize information and suggest wording, but its text is not an independent source. “The AI said it” proves neither stock nor a reservation nor opening hours. In this case F1 supports reference facts; missing information remains missing even when a response sounds confident.
Distinguish four operations: drafting, calculating, verifying and acting. Drafting creates text; calculation applies an operation to numbers; verification compares against an authorized source; action changes something outside the draft. A correct subtotal does not confirm stock or delivery. Past-tense wording does not prove an action happened.
Ask: “What evidence could another person observe?” For an exercise price, the F1 row; for a sum, its arithmetic; for a real reservation, an authorized system record and appropriate confirmation. This exercise has no reservation record. Avoid assigning permissions to a tool when nobody granted them.
Case for review
A fictional draft says: “P1 costs COP 8,000, ten notebooks remain, I reserved two and we open on Sunday.” Review every claim using only F1.
Your activity
In the week 1 worksheet, classify each claim: source fact, calculation, unknown data or unperformed action. Record evidence and a correction. Explain in your own words why a subtotal does not confirm an order.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Only the P1 price is supported by F1. Ten notebooks is absent; stock is unknown. No reservation occurred. Hours are unknown. Possible correction: “The notebook reference unit price is COP 8,000. Availability, hours and reservation options need checking.” This acknowledges limits without inventing an out-of-stock answer.
Supporting artifact 1: four-claim matrix, evidence and corrections.
Week 2 · Prepare minimal information and control versions
Goal: Build a traceable worksheet without real customer data or mixed sources.
Before requesting a draft, organize the information that may be used. A table needs clear names, units and version. Unit price is not subtotal, and reference stock is not a future guarantee. Preserve the original and work in an identified copy so someone else can reproduce your checks.
When versions disagree, do not choose the convenient value or average them. This exercise explicitly says F1 is current and F0 is old. In a real business you would confirm who maintains the source and when it applies. Automation does not establish that authority by itself.
Minimize data: reference, quantity, price and pending checks are enough here. No name, telephone, identity document, password or address is needed. Adding irrelevant data does not improve the exercise. Fictional identifiers allow organizational practice without exposing someone else’s information.
Case for review
A working copy mixes P1 at COP 9,000 from F0 with P2 at COP 1,200 from F1. It also adds “free delivery” without a source. The hypothetical inquiry remains two P1 and three P2.
Your activity
Record which version supplied each fact, correct P1 using F1 and mark delivery pending. Calculate subtotals and product total without downloaded formulas. Keep the written operations. Describe information unnecessary for this task.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
P1:2×COP 8,000=COP 16,000. P2:3×COP 1,200=COP3,600. Products:COP 19,600. Do not mix F0 with F1. Free delivery is unsupported. P1 stock is unknown, so the whole request cannot be confirmed. No personal information or credentials are needed.
Supporting artifact 2: corrected table, source version, arithmetic and unknowns.
Week 3 · Give instructions and check the draft
Goal: Write a useful instruction and spot errors without requiring model access.
A clear instruction can state goal, source, constraints, format and review. There is no need to pretend to have authority or use magic phrases. Request something checkable: a short reply separating subtotal from pending checks, not a promise to close a sale.
AI does not remove human review. A draft may omit a condition or invent an action. Check numbers against the table, facts against F1 and action verbs against what actually happened. Without connected tools, “already sent” or “already reserved” must be corrected.
This practice works without sending anything: write the instruction and compare the fictional draft below. If you choose to try the tutor, use only this invented case, read the provider notice and review the output. Sending a question does not establish learning or authorize customer data use.
Case for review
Fictional draft: “Your order is confirmed for COP 21,600 including delivery; I already reserved the notebooks.” It contains errors despite polite wording.
Your activity
Write a five-part instruction: goal, F1 source, limits, format and human review. Draft a corrected reply. Link each change to its source or to the absence of an executed action. No AI call is required.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Possible instruction: “Write three friendly sentences using only F1 for two P1 and three P2. State a COP 19,600 product subtotal and pending notebook stock and delivery. Do not confirm an order or reservation. End with human review as the next step.” Reply: “Thanks for your inquiry. The product subtotal would be COP 19,600; notebooks and delivery still need checking. A person will review those facts before confirming an order.”
Supporting artifact 3: instruction, corrected reply and change log.
Week 4 · Assemble evidence and self-review with the rubric
Goal: Prepare one reproducible monthly activity without treating self-review as academic approval.
Combine the practices into package M01: claim matrix, table and arithmetic, instruction and corrected reply, and a final limits note. It is one monthly macro activity with supporting exercises. It does not increase the approved annual activity count from twelve to forty-eight.
Approved academic policy v1 requires twelve activities, one per month, plus a final portfolio and human review. Four criteria score 0–2 each; minimum 6/8 with no zero. This resource uses facts/sources, artifact/process, data/human review and reasoning/limits. An authorized reviewer must inspect evidence; a personal checkbox or local score cannot replace that.
Use self-review to improve before a future submission. 0 means missing or incorrect,1 partial,2 complete and supported. Write a reason and reference for every score. Do not mark “reviewer approved” or invent a reviewer’s name. This page does not execute formal submission, human review or statement issuance.
Case for review
One package has correct arithmetic and a cautious reply but no F1 version or explanation of draft changes. Another preserves F1, operations, corrections and limits. Compare the evidence someone else can review.
Your activity
Organize package M01 with clear file names, complete the self-review rubric and correct gaps. Write five sentences on what you verified and what you cannot claim. Keep it locally; do not upload personal data or simulate human approval.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
A correct table without source or traceable changes is incomplete. Add F1, COP 16,000+COP3,600 and reasons for each correction. A self-score might be2 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 7, but7 does not verify the month: human evidence review is required. The final package must state that no real order, reservation, sending or delivery occurred.
Monthly activity M01: one package with four supporting artifacts and reasoned self-review.
Assemble your single monthly package
Download M01 package guide (TXT)
Keep your work locally. Formal review requires actual artifacts and an authorized human reviewer. No certificate, enrollment or benefit is issued by this page. The other eleven months and final portfolio remain separate parts of the annual program.
Optional AI tutor — read consent and limits first · My personal study marks, not academic verification