Digital Product Workbook Draft Kit

Demonstration disclosure

Self-initiated fictional demonstration. Original fictional inputs and AI-generated output from a local author-side test, reviewed by the authoring assistant. Not a customer project, independent external benchmark, learning-efficacy study, or sales result.

A Decision Meeting You Can Actually Prepare

Draft status and source inventory

This is an AI-assisted workbook draft for first-time team leads preparing a
20-minute internal project decision meeting. The user states that they wrote
and own the four fictional teaching excerpts and authorize AI processing.
That statement is the permission basis, not an independent rights audit.
Financial, legal, medical, and personnel decisions are excluded. The sources
support this narrow exercise; no critical source conflict was found. Human
subject-owner review remains necessary. [Sources: S1-S4; scope statement]

• S1, Meeting purpose v1: decision question, decision owner, required
  evidence, and an asynchronous alternative for updates without a decision.
• S2, Agenda v1: a 20-minute agenda with stages of 3, 7, 7, and 3 minutes,
  with the decision question at the top.
• S3, Options v1: two options, the same two criteria, and explicit unknowns.
• S4, Close v1: decision or unresolved question, follow-up owner and due
  date, and an evidence request when information is missing.

These are supplied teaching rules, not independently verified universal
meeting standards. The case details and practice tasks below are generated.
No unseen manual, customer material, or external evidence is used.
[Sources: S1-S4; provenance statement]

O1: Prepare one decision agenda

Prepare a 20-minute agenda that names one decision and its owner, compares two
options against two shared criteria without concealing unknowns, and ends with
either a decision record or a specific unresolved question, follow-up owner,
and date. Completion is demonstrated through E1-E3 and checked using A1-A3.
[Sources: S1-S4; generated objective]

Workbook body

W1: Identify the decision before the meeting

A meeting title such as "project update" does not tell participants what must
be decided. Write the decision as a question and name the person responsible
for it. Then list the evidence that person needs. This gives the agenda a
specific job: helping someone make that decision, rather than collecting
unrelated updates. If the only purpose is to report progress and no decision
is needed, use a written update instead. This workbook does not decide which
communication channel your organization requires. [Source: S1; generated
explanation of the supplied rule]

W2: Compare before choosing

Put the decision question at the top of the agenda. Allocate 3 minutes to
context, 7 to comparing options, 7 to deciding, and 3 to recording next steps.
The total is 20 minutes. During the comparison, give both options the same two
criteria: otherwise a benefit listed for one option might have no comparable
evidence for the other. Keep unknown evidence visibly unknown. A promising
assumption is not a demonstrated advantage. [Sources: S2, S3; generated
explanation and arithmetic check]

W3: Record what really happened

The closing record must distinguish a decision from an unresolved question.
Include one follow-up owner and a due date. If important evidence is missing,
write what is needed and who will obtain it; do not turn "we will investigate"
into "approved." A useful completion check is whether a reader can identify
the next action without guessing what the meeting decided. That check is a
generated application of the supplied close-out rule, not a measured claim
about team performance. [Source: S4; generated explanation]

C1: Continuous fictional case

Everything in this case is invented for practice. Nia leads a two-person
team preparing an internal poster display with Omar. Nia owns the decision
about tracking their remaining tasks. They can use either a shared checklist
or a shared board. Their agreed comparison criteria are: (1) whether both can
see the current task owner, and (2) whether updating a task fits their test
limit of one minute. The one-minute limit is a fictional case constraint,
not a rule from the teaching notes. [Fictional case; applies S1, S3]

In a fictional walkthrough, the checklist displayed task owners and Nia updated a test task in 40 seconds. The board also displayed owners, but no update-time test was performed. Nia wants that missing test before choosing. Omar can run it by 2026-11-03. Separately, Nia has a status-only note saying the poster title is drafted; that note needs no decision. [Fictional case; applies S1, S3, S4]

E1: Identify the decision and evidence

Purpose: make the question, owner, and evidence needs in O1 explicit.
Input: use C1, including the status-only poster-title note.
[Source: S1; generated exercise]

1. Write one question that distinguishes the two tracking options.
2. Name the decision owner and the missing evidence.
3. Identify which separate update could be written asynchronously.

Response area: Decision question: ____; Decision owner: ____; Evidence
needed: ____; Asynchronous update: ____.

Completion standard: the question names the tracking choice, the owner
matches C1, the missing board test is identified, and the status note is not
mistaken for a second decision. [Source: S1; fictional case C1]

E2: Construct the agenda and comparison

Purpose: turn O1 into a timed, evidence-aware plan. Input: C1 and the
four agenda stages in S2. [Sources: S2, S3; generated exercise]

1. Put the decision question first.
2. Allocate each stage its supplied time and verify the total.
3. Compare the checklist and board against both C1 criteria. Mark the untested
   value unknown rather than inventing a time.

Response area: Question: ____; Context: ____ minutes; Options: ____ minutes;
Deciding: ____ minutes; Next steps: ____ minutes; Total: ____ minutes.

Completion standard: all four stages use the supplied split and total 20; both rows use the same criteria; the board update time stays unknown. [Sources: S2, S3; fictional case C1]

E3: Review an inaccurate closing note

Purpose: apply O1's distinction between a decision and an unresolved
question. Input: C1 and this deliberately faulty fictional note:
"The board is approved because it is faster. Someone will check it later."
[Source: S4; generated exercise; invented faulty note]

1. Identify the unsupported approval and speed claim.
2. Replace the note with the actual unresolved question.
3. Specify the evidence request, follow-up owner, and due date from C1.

Response area: Unsupported statements: ____; Replacement closing note:
____; Evidence request: ____; Owner: ____; Due date: ____.

Completion standard: no option is described as approved, no unknown speed
is asserted as fact, and the request, Omar, and 2026-11-03 are explicit.
[Sources: S3, S4; fictional case C1]

Answer guidance

A1: One valid answer

"Should Nia and Omar track the poster tasks with a shared checklist or a
shared board?" Nia owns the decision. They need a board task-update-time test.
The poster-title status note can be sent asynchronously because it needs no
decision. Equivalent wording that preserves those distinctions also meets
the standard. [Source: S1; fictional case C1]

A2: Reference agenda and comparison

Place A1's question at the top. Use context 3 minutes, options 7, deciding 7,
and next steps 3: 3 + 7 + 7 + 3 = 20. Both options showed the current owner in
the fictional walkthrough. The checklist update took 40 seconds, within the
case's one-minute criterion. The board update time is unknown. This does
not establish that the checklist is universally better or that the board is
faster. [Sources: S2, S3; fictional case C1]

A3: One valid replacement

"Tracking-method choice remains unresolved: Nia requires the board's task
update-time evidence before choosing. Omar will run that test by 2026-11-03
and record whether an update fits the one-minute case criterion. No option
has been approved." This corrects both unsupported claims and assigns the
follow-up. The wording is generated; the roles, constraint, and date come
from the fictional case. [Sources: S3, S4; fictional case C1]

Coverage and release review

O1 is practiced by E1/A1 (question and evidence), E2/A2 (agenda and comparison),
and E3/A3 (accurate close). Coverage refers to these actual sections, not unseen
material. No source was excluded; generated case details remain fictional.
[Sources: S1-S4; generated coverage check]

Before release, the subject owner should check rights and AI-host permission,
accuracy of the supplied rules, audience fit, unresolved source conflicts,
case consistency, and each exercise's answer alignment. No external fact check,
learner trial, learning-efficacy study, PDF design, publication, or customer
result is claimed. [Sources: S1-S4; generated human-review checklist]