Month 5 · Create content without invented results
Four relative self-study weeks with an entirely fictional source, worked corrections and one monthly activity. No publication, external campaign or guaranteed completion time.
This is the developed Month 5 learning resource, not the entire twelve-month course. The four exercises form one monthly activity M05. Reading, personal marks and self-scores do not verify academic completion.
Complete fictional source F5
This is the complete source for the exercise. It describes no actual company or customer. D0 is an intentionally incorrect draft, not a testimonial or a service claim.
| Field | Authorized case information | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Service | Binding repair | Fictional exercise only |
| Process | Initial assessment required | No universal repair promise |
| Scope | Defined after assessment | Not known in advance |
| Timing | According to assessment | No fixed hour or deadline |
| Price | Not supplied | Do not invent a price |
| Guarantee | Not supplied | No guaranteed outcome |
| Images/reviews | None supplied | No rights or testimonials assumed |
No real customer data, channel, image license or publication approval is supplied. Keep all drafts locally.
Week 1 · Separate sources, promises and proposals
Goal: Inventory claims before drafting.
Content creation starts with a source rather than a slogan. Fictional sheet F5 describes binding repair after an initial assessment. It does not say every item can be repaired or set a fixed deadline. Persuasive wording cannot expand that scope. “Everything” and “always” are universal claims unsupported by the sheet.
Separate authorized case facts, unknown information and editorial suggestions. “Assessment first” is an F5 fact. “We could use a short heading” is a proposal. An invented price is neither. This distinction lets another person review sentences individually instead of accepting or rejecting the entire draft.
A source and a publication are different objects. F5 is learning material, not a real service offer. Copying it to social media would not make it authorized. Avoid business names, testimonials, phone numbers and real people’s photographs that imply an actual customer. Preserve fictional labels and identifiers.
Case for review
Draft D0: “We fix everything in one hour, 100% guaranteed. We are the best and our customers are always happy.”
Your activity
Split D0 into five claims: universal scope, deadline, guarantee, superiority and satisfaction. Record source, risk and correction for each. Identify two facts actually stated in F5.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
None of the five claims is supported. Everything ignores assessment; one hour is undefined; 100% is no authorized guarantee; best requires comparison; happiness invents customer outcomes. Initial assessment and later scope/deadline definition are supported. Do not replace a positive guarantee with an invented negative one: say it is unspecified.
Supporting artifact 1: five-claim matrix and two F5 facts.
Week 2 · Draft a 40–60-word piece
Goal: Write a heading, description and question without inventing an offer.
A short piece should explain what needs assessment and what remains unknown. A heading need not promise a solution. The description can organize process, scope and unresolved points. The exercise’s call to action is a consultation question, not an active link or permission to contact someone.
The 40–60-word range is an editorial constraint for this activity, not a conversion formula or commercial condition. Count tokens separated by spaces after removing repeated whitespace. Keep the heading and question outside the body. Punctuation attached to a word does not add another word under this convention.
Do not fill the minimum with invented results. Explain that assessment comes first and scope and timing follow it. If a price or schedule is absent from F5, keep it unresolved. Nothing in this exercise publishes the draft.
Case for review
Replace D0 with a heading, a 40–60-word body and one question based only on F5.
Your activity
Write before reading the example. Number body words in the worksheet and check the range. Trace each sentence to the sheet. Keep the question separate.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Possible heading: “Ask about binding repair”. Worked body, 48 words: “This fictional binding repair service starts with an assessment of each item. After reviewing the condition of the material, the possible scope and timing are defined according to that assessment. This draft lists no prices and promises neither a completed repair nor a specific guaranteed outcome for anyone.” Question: “Which part of the binding needs assessment?”. This remains practice rather than an offer.
Supporting artifact 2: heading, counted body, question and sentence-level sources.
Week 3 · Readability, images and accessibility
Goal: Review the piece without fabricated social proof.
Mobile review checks readable size, clear sentences and reading order, not appearance alone. Try a narrow window or read your draft aloud without a microphone. Split sentences that need repeated reading. A check at one viewport does not establish compatibility with every phone.
An owned or licensed image needs context. No photographs or reuse license are supplied here. Use a text placeholder or propose an original three-step diagram. Never invent a repair before/after or use faces implying actual customers. A decorative graphic is not evidence of results.
Alternative text explains the information an image conveys rather than adding promotional keywords. A proposed “assessment → scope → timing” diagram could have the equivalent “Assessment first, then definition of scope and timing”. Without a finished image, submit this as a proposal rather than published metadata.
Case for review
A mockup adds five stars, someone else’s photo and “real before/after”. The accurate body becomes tiny text.
Your activity
Remove unsupported signals. Make a text mockup with heading, body, question and visible fictional-practice label. Propose diagram alternative text and list remaining mobile checks.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Stars and before/after imply nonexistent reviews or outcomes and must be removed. No permission for the photograph was provided. Text without an image is valid when hierarchy and fictional labeling are clear. A diagram may explain the process but cannot claim a repair happened. Record the reviewed viewport and limits.
Supporting artifact 3: accessible mockup and rights/limits log.
Week 4 · Final review and M05 package
Goal: Keep versions and justify self-review.
Compare D0 with D1. A change log records which claim was removed, why and the evidence. “Improved wording” is insufficient; “removed one hour because F5 defines no fixed deadline” is reproducible. Another person should be able to follow the reasoning without sharing your editorial taste.
Separate accuracy, clarity, rights and publication status in your checklist. Reviewing a practice draft neither publishes it nor represents business approval. A real publication would need an authorized owner and current sources and rights. No campaign, social account or external tool is connected here.
Combine four supporting artifacts into one M05 activity. Use approved rubric v1: facts/sources, artifact/process, data/human review and reasoning/limits, each 0–2. Zero means missing or wrong evidence; one partial evidence; two sufficiently justified evidence. A 6/8 minimum without zeros requires authorized human review and is never automatic.
Case for review
One person counts only the body and gets 48 words. Another includes heading and question. Both claim “the tool approved my piece”.
Your activity
State the counting convention, attach source and versions and correct the approval claim. Score each criterion using evidence. Explain what a real public use would still require.
Worked feedback — compare after trying
Count only body words using the stated convention; heading and question stay separate. The English example has 48 words. Replace “approved” with “I reviewed my draft; authorized review remains”. A 2+2+1+1=6 self-score still requires human review. A 2+2+2+0=6 does not meet the criterion. No statements or benefits are issued.
Single M05 submission: source, matrix, 40–60-word piece, mockup, changes and justified self-review.
Assemble your single monthly package
Download M05 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