Training workbook

Use this workbook to demonstrate that you can operate the application and reason about its evidence correctly. Complete exercises in a separate practice company, or inspect the clearly labeled Cobalt guided example. The generated Northstar company is a reference answer, not a blank worksheet. All exercise data is fictional.

Workshop plan

Allow breaks between modules. Pair participants so one plays advisor and the other plays a fictional participant in a separate browser profile. Rotate roles. A facilitator can shorten the workshop by inspecting the prebuilt example instead of recreating every record.

Exhibit A: fictional order procedure

Standard orders need an item, quantity and customer reference. Sam checks intake. Robin records the credit-check result. Jamie owns the completeness and exception process. Sam records a release only when the complete order packet and passing credit result are available. Jamie reviews exceptions. This exercise excludes payments, changing credit limits and automatic release.

Alex is the executive sponsor. Jamie and Robin report to Alex. Sam reports to Jamie. These relationships are supplied as training roster facts; do not infer additional reporting lines.

Exhibit B: invented practice observations

These are invented aggregate values, not an empirical dataset. They are sufficient to practice recording observations and limitations, but do not establish an effect or provide source-level statistical verification.

Exercise 1: bound the engagement

Create a company and engagement plan. Use the goal of understanding standard order delays without weakening credit controls. Record the exclusions in Exhibit A, four roster people, optional total headcount 24, source policy, audience and weekly cadence.

Write your answers before proceeding:

• What is the output unit?
• Who is accountable for the work and who sponsors the engagement?
• What belongs outside the scope?
• Does a roster of four establish coverage of all 24 employees?
• Which policy fields are descriptive in this version rather than technically enforced?

Submit: engagement record and screenshot or written summary of coverage.

Exercise 2: preserve an account

Create a kickoff request for Alex using five relevant questions. Preview the response form, issue the private link, and open it without creating a participant account. Submit the fictional account, inspect it as advisor, and accept it.

• What proves the source’s origin in the application?
• Does accepting the response confirm the tasks?
• Was an email sent by issuing the link?
• What must you do if the invitation is already used or expired?

Submit: request, response and resulting source IDs. Do not include the invitation URL or password.

Exercise 3: resolve disagreement

Draft the intake task with Jamie as owner and Sam as performer, but deliberately say that Sam can change customer credit limits. Review and request confirmation. Have Sam choose Needs change and explain the error. Accept that response as advisor.

Revise the denied actions and instructions. Review the new task and issue current confirmation requests to Jamie and Sam. Inspect the history after accepting their responses.

• Why must the first disagreement remain visible?
• Which version do the new responses apply to?
• Can the previous correct response from Jamie confirm the revised text?
• Does the final Human confirmed state authorize an agent to act?

Submit: task version history, final state, and a two-sentence explanation of the authorization limit.

Exercise 4: make the graph useful

Create the remaining two tasks and supplied manager relationships. Open Work Map › Value chain, select a stage and then Jamie. Follow the highlighted organization to Jamie’s duties and tasks. Compare Work flows for handoffs with Task Cards for detailed cards and evidence. Open Reports for the Client Brief to inspect the same work's coverage without treating a documented task count as a measured business result.

• Which recorded fields make Jamie an owner, and which make Sam a performer?
• Which view best answers “Who reports to Jamie?”
• What should appear when no stage, owner or manager is recorded?
• When does a task inherit a duty’s stage assignment, and when does its own assignment override it?

Submit: a written explanation of the stage → person → duty → task path and one reporting relationship. Use the record inspector to verify the relationship direction.

Exercise 5: observe a workflow

Create and review the duty, two handoffs and a workflow. Complete TRAIN-001 through all three steps. Create TRAIN-002 and record missing information at intake.

• Why must credit review remain blocked in TRAIN-002?
• Which route should be selected after a passing credit result?
• What happens when a ready step passes its deadline?
• Do the case controls call a real order system?
• What must you do if the pinned workflow is revised before the case continues?

Submit: one complete case and one case needing attention, each with useful observer notes.

Exercise 6: interpret an outcome

Create the hypothesis that incomplete intake causes waiting, with credit capacity as the alternative. Define the metric and intervention prediction before recording Exhibit B’s observation. Create an Inconclusive outcome review.

• What does the arithmetic difference between 10 and 8 show?
• Did the practice result meet the 7-hour target?
• What confounders prevent a strong causal conclusion?
• Which new observation would help separate the two mechanisms?
• Why should the original prediction remain unchanged?

Submit: hypothesis, metric, intervention and reviewed outcome, plus a proposed next test.

Exercise 7: deliver to the right audience

Create an executive report for Alex and Jamie. Select appropriate records and write a short summary, decision, next steps and limitations. Preview the draft and attempt to download before approval. Then review the exact audience and content and download it.

Inspect the ZIP. Locate the HTML report, JSON, CSV and checksums. Confirm that raw interview text and credentials are absent. In a separate practice report, change a selected record after drafting and observe the stale-binding rejection.

• Why does approval bind to exact content and audience?
• What needs to happen before a changed report can be delivered?
• Which package is appropriate for the sponsor, and which for an implementation reviewer?
• How will you record delivery when the application does not send it?

Submit: approved synthetic client packet and a manual delivery-log entry clearly labeled “training; not sent.”

Exercise 8: ask without assuming

Use the fictional sandbox for this exercise. On the Work Map, select a stage and open its info button. Identify whether the explanation is authored guidance or a sourced AI proposal. If company passages or peer examples are absent, record that limitation; do not invent them. For a sourced proposal, explain why a peer example is not a client fact or proof of success.

Open Ask about this work, select a relevant fictional person and preview the questions. Do not send real messages. Explain which saved work links support that choice, why an empty stage may not apply, and how a standalone task differs from an unrecorded sequence.

• Which exact stored email would be used in a real workspace?
• What continuing checks does the selected-recipient option authorize, and how would you pause it?
• Why can the weekly spacing, open-request rule or already-asked gap prevent another request?
• What remains saved when AI processing fails or encounters changed work?
• Why can a documented task flow remain unavailable for case execution?

Submit: the sandbox question preview and a brief explanation of the evidence, recipient and review boundaries. No email or provider execution is required for this exercise.

Exercise 9: read the Repo and ask the right person

Use the fictional Cobalt sample. Do not send real messages. The sample never uses AI connections, so the Copilot shows its no-AI path. That path is part of the exercise.

1. Open Repo. Read the toolbar summary. Write down how many files are filled, to fill and disputed.
2. Select each stop on the Layer row. Hover each stop first and read its tooltip. Write one sentence on what each layer selects.
3. Open company/profile.md. Open Details. Note the state, the sources and the known gaps.
4. Open To review. Choose one research finding. Read its decision sentence.
5. Select Review in file →. Read what the Copilot panel shows without an AI connection: the decision, who can answer, and Ask the person responsible.
6. Use Ask the person responsible. Check that no question asks about a confirmed value. Queue the ask.
7. Open Discovery › Asks. Find the ask under Queued asks. Select Review and send → and read the real email in the preview. Do not send it. Select Remove to withdraw the draft.

• Which file states count as filled, and why does Inferred not count?
• Why must a confirmed value never appear in a question?
• Who did DutyGraph suggest as the person responsible, and why?
• What did queuing the ask send? What would send it?
• In a company with an approved AI connection, what would an Edit proposal write when you select Accept on company/operating-rhythm.md?

Submit: the counts, the 5 layer sentences, the decision sentence, the queued ask's questions, and your answers. No email, link or provider call is required.

Final assessment

Explain the engagement to a fictional sponsor in five minutes. Show the work, the evidence, the strongest remaining uncertainty, and the next decision. Finish by opening a reviewed client report and identifying its audience and coverage limits.

An advisor is ready for supervised use when they can operate the flow, recover from disagreement and stale data, and explain the limits without prompting. The assessment is a training aid; it is not professional accreditation or production security acceptance.