Instructor Guide: Courses 01 to 04

Series · Case · Glossary · References

Read this guide before teaching. Follow the agent instructor method for pacing, assistance, assessment, and continuity. Use the shared case as the basis for exercises. Present answer guidance as teaching or feedback, after the learner has attempted the relevant work. External readings are optional unless you supply the required source text.

Assess each stated criterion as meets, needs repair, or insufficient evidence. A correct conclusion needs a source and a defensible explanation; a polished form cannot supply missing grounds.

Course 01: Professional Practice and Responsibility

In Courses 01 to 04, each lesson keeps the classical method, states the cost that method was answering, shows what agents change, and develops the extended method. The classical answers stay correct: the Northbank authority conclusions, source roles, and interpretations are the same as before. What the courses add is how the learner directs and examines agent work, and keeps their own judgment visible. Course 01 introduces the examination record and the defense through changed premises that every later course uses, so take time over them here.

Session sequence

Ask learners to describe an assignment that affected people outside their team.
Read A01 and A02 together.
Discuss Lessons 1 to 4 using the decision map and ethical-pressure event, including the extended decision map's Steps 7 and 8.
Examine the worked example's division of contributions, then its agent version and sample examination note.
Discuss Lesson 5 and what a useful examination record contains, before any agent-assisted practice.
Have each learner prepare the decision map without an agent.
Run the paired practice with Packet A only, with agents for the remaining outputs and a brief and examination note for each.
Run the three further exercises: capability and authority, the concern brief comparison, and the examination competence check.
Examine each appointment response against its eight criteria, including each learner's defense.
Require repairs where a conclusion exceeds its evidence or authority.

Step 6 deliberately comes before agent use. A learner who has mapped the decisions once knows what an agent's map should contain and can recognize a return that departs from it.

Use the opening discussion to find differences between appointment and actual practice. Do not require learners to disclose confidential information.

Teaching Course 01 with an agent

Begin with one proposed act: ask the learner who can perform it, who needs technical competence, and who answers for its consequences. Have them find the relevant basis in A01 before you supply your explanation. If they assign everything to the sponsor, go back to the particular decision right instead of asking them to memorize the role titles.

In the pressure exercise, play the requesting party and wait for the learner's reply. Ask whose decisions that reply could affect and what its wording permits the recipient to infer. Examine their response against the source limits and affected-person reasoning. Do not write a truthful replacement on their behalf and then credit it as their demonstrated response.

Assessing agent-assisted work

Follow the teaching guide's method for assessing agent-assisted work. For Course 01, look for these points in particular.

In the briefs, check that A05 is given as a proposal and A06 as an open inquiry, and that the brief states when the agent must stop and report. A brief that asks an agent to "prepare the equipment selection" without those conditions shows a gap in direction, whatever the agent returned.

In the examination record, look for checks against A01 for each assigned decision and for A04's limits in any electrical statement. The record should mark which judgments are the learner's own; the sample note in the worked example shows the expected size.

The sixth criterion assesses the briefs, the seventh the examination record, and the eighth the defense. Useful changed premises include: if A05 had a recorded scope amendment, which activities change, and which decisions remain reserved? If the agent system allowed agents to place orders, would that change who may authorize an order? If an electrical capacity result were added to Packet A, which statement in the concern note changes, and which still needs the electrical engineer?

Course 01 is the learner's first examination record. Teach what a useful note contains before rating it, and treat a thin first record as needing repair, not as a failure of character.

Knowledge-check answers

Responsibility concerns assigned work or a decision. Authority permits a stated act. Accountability requires explanation and an answer for the responsibility.
The manager organizes execution, expenditure, contracts, and forecasts. The project engineer coordinates the technical basis and interfaces. Discipline engineers keep their technical responsibilities.
A05 is a proposal, and no scope amendment is recorded. A02 Rev 1 remains the approved basis for project development.
A04 records 600 V, three phase, 60 Hz at the surveyed connection, but it leaves capacity, protection coordination, and compatibility unresolved.
Decline the unsupported statement, and state what the evidence establishes and what it leaves open. Explain the consequences and get the required response. For real work, follow the actual professional obligations.
Review adds examination, but it does not transfer the producer's responsibility to the reviewer. The producer must carry repairs and explain the result. The reviewer remains responsible for the assigned examination and its conclusions.
Capability shows only that the agent can perform the act. Someone must establish that the act is authorized under the appointment and control process, and a person with that authority must authorize it, with stated limits. The people who authorized the act and accepted the result answer for reliance on it; the agent holds no appointment under A01.
A supervisor answering for a junior's work is not new. The difference is that a junior colleague carries professional duties of their own: to raise concerns, work within competence, and make truthful statements. An agent carries none, so no one but the directing or accepting person carries a professional duty for its contribution. As agents do more of the work, more of the accountability for the result rests on the accountable people who direct and accept the work, and it grows with the work agents do. A sound answer does not assume that agents replace staff.
An agent's competence is uneven, and it does not reliably recognize where it ends. Its return in an area it handles poorly can read as fluently as one in an area it handles well, so fluency and confidence do not distinguish them. Only examination by someone competent to judge the work does.
The classical signal is difficulty: unfamiliar work is slower and produces hesitation and questions, which prompt the assistance request. Agents do not slow down at their limits. The replacement is a competence check applied to the examination: for each judgment an agent contributes to, state how it will be examined and whether the examiner is competent to examine it, and where not, request a competent examiner. Trying the agent on a part whose answer is known can add evidence, but does not replace examination.
State in the brief the conditions under which the agent must stop and report instead of proceeding, such as an unsupported claim, conflicting sources, an act outside authority, or a missing input, and ask for a separate section of concerns and open choices in the return. The person then examines that section and decides which concerns to raise.

Practice reasoning

A valid brief may select the definition of hydraulic inputs and an investigation of electrical capacity as its next activities. Learners must identify the specialist contributions and limits. They may instead select an inquiry into external requirements if they explain its effect on selection.

The sponsor decides changes to scope, budget, and target. A competent technical authority decides a technical deviation within its remit. Procurement needs an authorized package. Operations accepts operating information and readiness arrangements.

The activity plan should not claim that the project engineer can establish every discipline conclusion on their own, and it should not treat approval for development as proof of a complete design basis.

For a competence limit, accept a specific unfamiliar method or responsibility. The learner must request suitable assistance. A vague statement such as “ask someone experienced” needs repair.

In the invented pressure event, a truthful alternative states that A04 establishes the observed connection characteristics. Capacity, protection coordination, and compatibility remain unresolved; accept wording that preserves those limits. Require learners to explain how a false confirmation could affect funding and later equipment decisions. They need not allege a statutory violation, since A06 leaves the jurisdiction unresolved.

Use the ethical discussion to distinguish general guidance from binding requirements, and discuss public welfare, truthful statements, confidentiality, and interests that can impair impartial judgment. The course does not supply a universal reporting procedure. Learners must identify the need for actual professional guidance where obligations conflict.

In the capability-and-authority exercise, a sound answer says that an agent may be able to perform all four acts in some systems. Drafting a concern note is ordinary preparatory work that the person raising the concern can direct, and that person answers for the note they send. Relabelling A02 Rev 0 is a document-control act that someone with control authority must authorize. Sending a purchase package to procurement needs an authorized package, because procurement places orders against authorized purchase packages under A01, and the agent's ability to send a package does not authorize it. Recording the sponsor's decision on A05 is permissible only after the sponsor has decided; an agent that records a decision nobody made attributes an approval to the sponsor. In every case, the person who authorized the act answers for reliance on it. Accept variations about who holds document-control authority, since A01 does not name a document controller, if the learner says so.

In the concern brief comparison, do not expect a particular agent behaviour. Credit an explanation that connects each return to its brief: what the first brief left the agent free to do, and which stop condition in the second brief governed the change, or why it made no difference.

In the examination competence check, accept any judgment the learner identifies, such as electrical compatibility or hydraulic conditions. A sound answer states what the examination would check and recognizes when a competent examiner, such as the electrical engineer, is needed instead of another agent.

Assessment decision guidance

Match each observed statement to the eight course criteria. Ask the learner to name the source for one numerical value and the authority for one proposed act.

The first criterion requires both affected-person reasoning and a truthful response to the invented pressure event. A promise to confirm compatibility later does not justify claiming confirmation now.

Accept different activity sequences when their conditions are clear. Require repair if final selection proceeds without the unresolved hydraulic and external basis. Do not require invented technical calculations.

Acceptance in training covers the demonstrated learning result, but it does not grant a real professional appointment or determine licensing eligibility.

Common defects

The learner gives all decisions to the sponsor without preserving technical responsibilities.
The learner gives all approvals to the project engineer by title alone.
The learner treats the newest request as the approved scope.
The learner treats a checked observation as a complete electrical conclusion.
The learner stops every activity when only dependent decisions lack a basis.
The learner treats review as transfer of responsibility.
The learner removes an important qualification to improve the commercial presentation.
The learner issues an agent-drafted statement without checking its source limits.
The learner treats an agent's ability to perform an act as authority to perform it.
The learner assigns a reserved decision, or answerability for a result, to an agent.
The learner accepts an agent's statement of confidence as evidence of competence.
The learner's competence check covers production but not examination of agent work.
The brief gives no stop conditions, so concerns have no route to a person.
Examination notes state a conclusion without saying what was checked.
A defense that restates the response but cannot explain the consequence of a changed premise.

Course 02: Document and Configuration Control

Session sequence

Ask learners to retrieve A02 Rev 1 from their Portfolio 01 references.
Compare identity, revision, status, and purpose.
Discuss why approval for development can coexist with unresolved inputs.
Examine the worked example's control and technical responses separately, then its agent version.
Discuss Lesson 5's arrangement and failure modes before any agent-assisted practice.
Have each learner prepare source-control entries for A01, A06, and A07 without an agent.
Assign the practice outputs, prepared with agents, with a brief and an examination note for each.
Run the retrieval test in pairs.
Run the three further exercises: the brief as an issue, the basis-used check, and record restraint.
Examine the controlled-basis packages against the nine criteria, including each learner's defense.
Require repairs to ambiguous issue status or missing impact treatment.

Use a simple document list for the session. Do not introduce a specialist control system unless it helps the learners' actual context.

Teaching Course 02 with an agent

Ask the learner to explain the difference between finding a document and establishing that it is suitable for the current activity. Then attempt retrieval through the references in the index they submitted. Follow the route they provide; do not silently repair a missing reference from what you already know of the case.

Report what you could actually retrieve, including any access limitation, because a description of a folder does not establish that its files are accessible. When you already know the records, distinguish this check of the supplied route from discovery by a reader working unaided. Use another reviewer where the required examination needs that separation.

After an index repair, ask which earlier work could still rely on the wrong basis. Let the learner trace and repair the affected use; correcting the list alone does not demonstrate adoption.

Assessing agent-assisted work

Follow the teaching guide's method for assessing agent-assisted work. For Course 02, look for these points in particular.

In the briefs, check that A02 Rev 1 is issued with its approval status and unresolved conditions, that A02 Rev 0 and A03 Rev 0 are marked as draft and archived reference, and that A05 is marked as a proposal. A brief that points an agent at "the shared folder" without naming the governing revision fails the issue check.

In the examination record, look for a comparison between the sources each agent reports using and the revisions issued. Look also for the learner's treatment of text-search results as leads, not as evidence that no work used Rev 0.

The sixth criterion assesses the arrangement for what agents read and write, the seventh record restraint, the eighth the examination record, and the ninth the defense. Useful changed premises include: if an agent had overwritten A02 Rev 0 with Rev 1's content, what evidence would be lost, and how would the impact enquiry change? If A05 had a recorded scope amendment, which agent assignments would need re-briefing? If the library index also omitted A03's source note, what would an agent working from the index report?

Knowledge-check answers

A stable identity identifies the document across copies, locations, and revisions. A filename locates a file but can change or hide its identity.
The highest revision may be a draft or have an unsuitable issue purpose, but the activity needs the authorized revision and the relevant approval scope.
A02 Rev 1 permits project development under the recorded scope, but it leaves hydraulic conditions, changeover definition, and external requirements unresolved.
Distribution establishes that information was sent, but adoption requires the affected owner to examine the change and apply it in the relevant work.
Document control manages document identity, revision, status, access, distribution, and retention. Configuration control connects the actual product, defining information, authorized changes, and examination evidence.
Identify the affected work, assess its consequences, repair it, and examine the repair. Preserve the earlier basis and defect where recovery requires them.
A designer who uses Rev 0 affects the work that designer touches, and someone often notices. An agent briefed with Rev 0 can carry 15 litres per second into many outputs quickly, and other agents may read those outputs as inputs, so the error can spread further before anyone notices it.
The brief gives the agent information for a purpose, which is what an issue does. Apply the issue check to it: identify the receiving activity and permitted use, the issued revisions with status, and the unresolved conditions that affect the work. When the basis changes, agent work in progress is among the recipients.
Each record uses the attention of the people who must read, examine, and keep it current, and a stale record can later be read as current by a person or agent. Keep a record when a concrete consumer needs it to decide, act, examine, or recover, or when an acceptance requirement calls for it; prefer a link or query to another maintained copy.
It establishes that the value is not written in the outputs the agent searched. It does not establish that no work used Rev 0, because a value derived from 15 litres per second need not contain the number, and the search may not have covered every output. The affected owners still examine their work.
Accept any pair argued from the cost each practice answered. Practices that answered the cost of making and copying records by hand, such as keeping records few because each was costly, lose part of their reason; the question becomes which records a consumer needs. Practices that keep or gain importance include stable identity, the distinction of revision, status, and purpose, the issue check, preserving defects and earlier revisions, and connecting records to the product, because agents now act on whichever basis they are given. A weak answer names practices without connecting them to the cost.

Practice reasoning

A source-control list should identify A02 Rev 1 as approved for project development and distinguish A02 Rev 0 as an earlier draft. It should preserve A03's archived status and copied-estimate origin.

For the unaided entries, A01 Rev 0 is the project appointment, A06 Rev 0 is an open inquiry whose permitted use is directing the requirements enquiry, and A07 Rev 0 is an inventory that describes defects without approving any record. Accept equivalent wording.

A04 should appear as a checked observation with explicit limits. A05 remains a proposal, and A06 remains an open enquiry about external requirements. A07 describes the inventory defects; it does not approve the other documents.

Packet A supplies no actual folder path or recipient list, so accept references to the stable case records. Learners may mark access and distribution details as open, but they must not invent a completed issue transaction.

The issue note should state its purpose (project development under A02 Rev 1) and identify the unresolved conditions. A valid distribution list can include the project manager, project engineer, relevant disciplines, operations, and procurement, but its exact extent needs the actual affected activities.

The impact enquiry should ask each affected owner to identify work that used the draft flow or the legacy electrical value, and it should request the conclusion and the required repair. An enquiry is not evidence that the repair is complete.

The future configuration checklist can request selected equipment identities, motor characteristics, pump data, and control definition. These are headings for comparison; Packet A does not contain a complete selection or an installed product.

A sound brief for the impact-enquiry agent names its receiving activity (drafting the enquiry), its permitted use (draft for the project engineer's examination, not an impact conclusion), A02 Rev 1 as approved for project development with its unresolved operating conditions, A02 Rev 0 as an earlier draft, A03 Rev 0 as archived with its source note, and A05 Rev 0 as a proposal. Accept other forms that carry the same content.

In the basis-used check, accept a finding of no difference if the learner states what the comparison would have caught, such as an output built on Rev 0.

In the restraint exercise, accept any defensible judgment that names a consumer and question for each kept record. Credit a learner who removes an agent-made copy of a record in favour of a link, or who keeps a record because recovery or the impact enquiry needs it.

Assessment decision guidance

Ask a reviewer to retrieve two records without additional oral directions. Rate identity and retrieval from that actual attempt. Then ask the learner what work could remain wrong after the document list was corrected.

Accept a small list and short issue note when they satisfy the criteria. Require repair if the package treats a brochure as a selected configuration or if a change method stops at notification.

Avoid prescribing retention periods. The exercise teaches learners to preserve identity and history; actual retention follows the governing arrangement.

Common defects

The learner relies on a filename ending in “final.”
The learner defines current solely as the highest revision.
The learner expands development approval into purchase authorization.
The learner deletes the draft before examining work that used it.
The learner treats the controller as the authority for technical impact.
The learner reports adoption from a distribution message alone.
The learner briefs an agent with a folder or filename instead of an identified revision and status.
The learner accepts an agent extract or summary that lost its parent identity or source note.
The learner treats a text search for 15 litres per second as proof that no work used Rev 0.
The learner lets agent outputs enter the controlled set without examination.
The arrangement lets agents overwrite controlled items instead of creating revisions.
The learner keeps every record an agent produced without naming a consumer.
The learner accepts an agent-written configuration entry that the brochure cannot support.
Examination notes state a conclusion without saying what was checked.
A defense that restates the package but cannot explain the consequence of a changed premise.

Course 03: Information Research and Evidence

Session sequence

Compare a broad research request with a bounded question, and discuss what a broad request now costs when an agent does the search.
Ask learners to retrieve A04 through subject terms.
Discuss the evidential roles of A02, A03, A04, and A05.
Examine the worked claim-and-evidence table, then its agent version.
Have each learner prepare the flow claim table without an agent.
Prepare the two practice packets with agents, with a brief and an examination note for each output.
Run the partner reconstruction and challenge.
Run the three further exercises: passages, conditions, and outside knowledge.
Examine the assessed packet against the seven criteria, including each learner's defense, and require supported repairs.

If the group uses digital searching, also provide a printed packet. Retrieval and interpretation must remain possible without an external connection.

Teaching Course 03 with an agent

Give the research question and ask the learner to choose a source and explain what it can establish. Then present a claim that the same source cannot support. This checks the relationship between question, evidence, and intended use, rather than whether the learner recognizes a familiar record number.

If you supply a source to help a learner who has stalled, identify that assistance and have them examine its role and limits. Do not count your retrieval as their demonstration of discovery; ask them to perform the next relevant retrieval through their own index.

When a learner cites an external source, distinguish information about a method from evidence of a Northbank site condition. Request the actual passage and its applicability; do not accept or reject it solely because its conclusion agrees with your guide.

Assessing agent-assisted work

Follow the teaching guide's method for assessing agent-assisted work. For Course 03, look for these points in particular.

In the briefs, check that Packet A is named as the only permitted source, by revision, that electrical suitability is placed outside the enquiry, and that the brief asks for quoted passages and for conflicts to be reported, not resolved.

In the examination record, look for passages checked against the cited revisions and for conditions compared one by one, such as A02's operating conditions and A04's three stated limits. A record that says "citations checked" without naming which ones is insufficient evidence.

The sixth criterion is the learner's examination of agent research; rate it from the record, not from the packet's correctness. The seventh is the defense. Useful changed premises include: if A03 had carried a field survey reference, how would its evidential role change, and would it still conflict with A04? If an agent's table cited a capacity result in A04, what would you check and what would you conclude? If the library index listed A04, what would the omission problem become?

Knowledge-check answers

The decision or activity defines the consumer, relevant scope, needed evidence, and useful form of the answer, and it prevents an unbounded collection.
Subject terms support discovery by a project question, while identities support exact retrieval. A good index also preserves relationships and relevant qualifications.
A02 governs project-development scope but does not measure plant conditions. A04 supplies an observation but does not approve a scope change or electrical design.
A03 is an archived schedule whose values were copied from an earlier planning estimate, and it has no field survey reference.
A02 Rev 1 supplies the approved 18 litres per second requirement. Rev 0 was a draft. A03 is legacy information. A05 proposes 22 litres per second without amendment.
The packet needs the question, source index, claim entries, conflict treatment, conclusion, and unresolved matters; its sources and qualifications must remain retrievable.
Classical research spent much of its effort on gathering, and the researcher who gathered a source had usually read it. With agents, gathering from accessible records can become fast, so the remaining work is establishing provenance and evidential role and catching plausible fabrications and dropped conditions, which only examination does. A broad request now costs examiner attention instead of search time.
Check that A04 Rev 1 contains the quoted passage and that it says what the claim says. Check that the claim keeps A04's conditions: an observation at the surveyed connection, with spare capacity, protection coordination, and compatibility not established. A well-formed citation does not show that the passage exists.
Each sentence can be true while a condition is missing. "A02 requires 18 litres per second" is accurate but drops "under the operating conditions that the project must establish," which makes a single measurement appear to provide more evidence than it does.
Both are values with no traceable origin: A03's were copied from a planning estimate and carry no survey reference, and an agent's unsourced value has no passage behind it. If someone cites the agent output later, it becomes a source with no provenance. Require a source, revision, and passage for each agent claim, treat agent output as derived information, and cite the record it summarizes instead of the summary.
Know what the agent searched: which sources, which terms, and which parts it could not read. An absence report is only as good as its coverage. In Packet A the report happens to be correct, since the packet contains no capacity result, but the learner should rely on it only as far as the stated coverage supports.

Practice reasoning

For the flow question, the conclusion is 18 litres per second for project development under A02 Rev 1, but the operating conditions remain unresolved. The packet must distinguish the approved value from both the earlier value of 15 and the proposed value of 22.

For the electrical question, A04 supports the observed 600 V, three-phase, 60 Hz connection. A03's 480 V value has a copied-estimate origin. The comparison supports further investigation using the checked observation, but it does not prove capacity or compatibility.

Useful subjects include scope, transfer flow, proposed expansion, electrical connection, survey, and legacy estimate. Accept equivalent terms if the partner can retrieve the right source and its qualifications.

An index should flag the design note's incomplete citation, and the learner may request the full note and its affected claims. Packet A does not contain the complete note, so the learner cannot claim a completed correction of every conclusion.

The remaining enquiries can cover operating conditions, electrical capacity, protection, compatibility, and external requirements. A strong packet explains which decision needs each result, but a list with no consumer or consequence needs repair.

In the passage check, credit a complete account of each claim checked, including a finding that every passage was found. Where a passage could not be found, the learner should remove or repair the claim, not merely note it.

In the condition check, the conditions to look for are A02's distribution-header location, the operating conditions the project must establish, the two-unit arrangement with confirmation of changeover with operations, and A04's statement that it does not establish spare capacity, protection coordination, or equipment compatibility. Accept any accurate list of what the summary kept and dropped.

In the outside-knowledge exercise, any statement about typical motor voltages, supply practice, or equipment suitability that is not in Packet A cannot establish a Northbank fact. A sound brief sentence restricts the agent to Packet A by revision and asks it to report what the packet does not answer.

Assessment decision guidance

Ask the learner to defend one source choice against another. Then ask which claim the chosen source cannot establish. This tests something beyond copying values: an understanding of evidence.

Use the partner's retrieval result for the retrieval criterion. Accept different index layouts that preserve identity, role, and limits. Require repair if sources are ranked by reputation alone.

An external source may inform a method, but it cannot establish an unrecorded Northbank site fact. Do not reward unsupported gap filling.

Common defects

The learner collects information without a question or consumer.
The learner omits A04 because the existing library index omitted it.
The learner quotes A03 without its origin note.
The learner treats an observation as an authorization.
The learner gives a conclusion broader than the source conditions.
The learner hides discrepancies by removing older source entries.
The brief does not restrict the agent to the permitted sources, so outside knowledge fills a gap.
The learner accepts a citation or quoted passage without checking that it exists in the cited revision.
The learner accepts an agent summary that dropped a condition or limit.
The learner relies on an agent's report that a source is absent without knowing its coverage.
The learner lets an agent's output enter the library or packet as a source.
The learner accepts an agent's silent resolution of the 480 V and 600 V values.
Examination notes state a conclusion without saying what was checked.
A defense that restates the packet but cannot explain the consequence of a changed premise.

Course 04: Interpreting Requirements and Obligations

Session sequence

Read A06 aloud before discussing external requirements, and state that its rule applies to every agent the learners brief.
Distinguish technical relevance, project authority, and legal applicability.
Parse A02 into actor, result, conditions, and unresolved definition.
Compare A02 with A05 using the worked example, then its agent version.
Have each learner prepare the A06 enquiry without an agent.
Prepare the remaining interpretation and applicability outputs with agents, with a brief and an examination note for each output.
Run the three further exercises: invention guard, restatement comparison, and visible ambiguity.
Challenge one claimed obligation in each memorandum.
Examine the eight assessed criteria, including each learner's defense, and require supported repairs.

The offline exercise needs no statute or code text: it teaches what the missing applicability basis prevents. Do not invent legal instruments to make the exercise easier.

For optional legal practice, select a real jurisdiction and supply the current official adoption instruments and relevant amendments. Identify what you select for the exercise separately from Northbank's core packet. Give learners the exact source text needed for the task, and arrange suitably competent interpretation of the answer.

In the optional exercise, learners' agents may name instruments or editions from their own knowledge. Treat each as a candidate until the learner shows it in the official text you supplied or another official source, and do not let an agent's account of adoption stand in for the instrument.

Teaching Course 04 with an agent

Ask the learner to trace one proposed obligation to its source, conditions, and authority. Use A06 to examine what remains missing. If they name a familiar code, ask what establishes its applicability before you discuss its technical provisions.

When the learner asks for a real legal answer, distinguish that inquiry from the offline assignment. Continue teaching from the supplied case, or prepare the separately sourced exercise described above. Do not insert an assumed jurisdiction or remembered clause into Northbank.

Compare the learner's restatement with the original requirement. If it loses a condition, explain the effect and have the learner repair their own statement and proposed examination. Preserve the difference between recognizing an existing obligation and proposing a new project constraint.

You are an agent too. Do not supply a jurisdiction, code, clause, or edition from memory to help the learner, and if you name one in a general explanation, label it as an example and not as a Northbank source.

Assessing agent-assisted work

Follow the teaching guide's method for assessing agent-assisted work. For Course 04, look for these points in particular.

In the briefs, check that A06's rule against inventing a statute, clause, ruling, or exemption is stated, that A05 is given as a proposal with no recorded amendment, and that the brief allows the agent to answer "unresolved" and asks for possible readings.

In the examination record, look for a condition-by-condition comparison of each agent restatement with A02, and for the treatment of any instrument, clause, or precedence rule an agent named. A finding of none is acceptable when the learner says what they looked for.

The first criterion now covers invented authority whoever drafted it; rate it from the memorandum itself. The sixth criterion is the learner's direction of agents, the seventh the examination record, and the eighth the defense. Useful changed premises include: if the instructor supplied a real jurisdiction and its adoption instrument, which rows of the A06 enquiry change, and who interprets them? If A05 carried a recorded scope amendment, which interpretations change and which conditions remain? If an agent cited a clause that exempted non-potable systems, what would you do before relying on it?

Knowledge-check answers

Technical relevance means information can help address the problem. Applicability means a requirement governs the work through an identified authority and satisfied conditions.
Publication does not establish adoption, specified edition, effective date, amendments, or project classification. The actual instrument and project conditions need examination.
Retain the distribution-header location and the operating conditions that the project must establish. The available requirement does not define a complete test envelope.
A02 requires confirmation of the needed changeover function. A05 proposes automatic changeover, but no recorded amendment makes that proposal an approved scope requirement.
Obtain jurisdiction, facility classification, asset boundary, permits, adoption instruments, and contract references. Compare their conditions with the actual assignment before concluding applicability.
Interpretation explains meaning or application. An existing applicable obligation does not wait for the sponsor to adopt it. An authorized decision permits a stated act within authority. A controlled change amends the baseline through the governing process.
Applicability, the interpretation that is relied on and its standing, and the authority to decide stay with people. Applicability depends on the actual instrument and the verified facts of the assignment, which an agent cannot establish. An agent can draft readings, but the interpretation the project relies on needs a person who examines it, adopts it, and answers for it. Decisions need an appointment, which agents do not hold. Agents can help find, read, compare, and draft.
Agents can produce a statute, clause, ruling, or exemption that does not exist, or an edition that is not current, in the same confident form as an accurate one, and without any intent to deceive. An invented authority in a well-formed draft is harder to notice than a person's guess, so the rule must be in the brief and the return must be examined for it.
It is a universal order of precedence, which the course rejects. Several obligations can apply together, and their relationship depends on the actual instruments and circumstances. Choosing the more demanding statement automatically can also have technical effects that need examination. The statement has no supplied source.
State that "unresolved" is an acceptable answer, ask for the possible readings and the source support for each instead of one conclusion, prohibit naming any instrument, clause, ruling, exemption, or precedence rule not in the supplied sources, and tie each authority claim to a supplied source and revision. The person then states the supported interpretation and the clarification still required.
An applicable obligation can govern before the team recognizes it, and restricting agents to supplied sources does not find what nobody supplied. Where the consequence warrants it, let an agent suggest candidate obligations, label them as candidates, and have a competent person obtain and examine each one from its official source.

Practice reasoning

A valid memorandum retains 18 litres per second for approved development and the one-operating, one-standby arrangement. It assigns the missing operating conditions and changeover definition, and it treats the 22 litres per second request as impact-assessment work.

The inquiry should explain why each missing input matters. Jurisdiction identifies possible authorities and instruments. Classification and asset boundary help match their conditions. Permits may add relevant conditions. Adoption instruments identify edition, amendments, and effective provisions. Contract references identify assignment obligations and clarification routes.

Learners must not conclude that a building, pressure, electrical, or plumbing code actually governs Northbank from its name or water description. Accept candidate subjects for investigation if they are clearly labeled. Require repair to any invented clause, exemption, or regulator determination.

The project manager can arrange the enquiry within approved work. The project engineer coordinates its technical effects. The actual authority for a legal interpretation remains outside the detail that the fictional packet demonstrates.

For proposed examinations, accept checking the two-unit arrangement against the identified configuration. For flow, require the operating conditions before claiming a complete performance examination. For changeover, require the function definition before asserting a complete behavioral test.

In the invention-guard exercise, a sound brief quotes A06's rule, restricts the agent to Packet A by revision, and states that any matter A06 leaves open stays open. Credit the learner's treatment of anything the agent named: removal, or labelling as a candidate subject for investigation with no claim of applicability. A return that names nothing is acceptable if the learner says what they checked for.

In the restatement comparison, the conditions to check are the distribution-header location, the operating conditions the project must establish, the one-operating and one-standby arrangement, and the duty to confirm the changeover function with operations.

In the ambiguity exercise, an answer that requires automatic changeover settles something that needs the sponsor's scope decision. A sound brief asks for the readings of A02's statement, keeps A05 as a proposal, and lets the agent report that the changeover definition is still to be obtained from operations.

Assessment decision guidance

Ask the learner to compare their restatement with A02 sentence by sentence. Check whether the operating conditions and confirmation duty survived. Then ask which dependent decision A06 currently prevents.

Rate the enquiry on its specific missing inputs, owners, and needed results. A general instruction to “check codes” is insufficient. Do not demand a real legal conclusion from the offline packet.

Reject universal precedence rules, but accept a relationship grounded in the sources or an explicit unresolved conflict. A contractual clarification process does not itself settle external professional or legal obligations.

Distinguish recognizing an existing obligation from adopting a new project constraint. Its consequences can require scope or resource decisions, but those decisions must respect the source authority of the existing obligation.

Common defects

The learner applies a familiar code without an adoption or assignment basis.
The learner selects the newest published edition by default.
The learner treats non-potable water as a complete legal classification.
The learner replaces the changeover confirmation duty with automatic changeover.
The learner removes operating conditions from the flow requirement.
The learner treats sponsor approval as a regulator determination.
The learner invents a legal clause to close the enquiry.
The learner keeps an agent-named instrument, clause, edition, or exemption without an official source.
The learner accepts an agent's precedence rule, such as "the more stringent requirement governs."
The learner accepts an agent restatement that dropped a condition.
The learner accepts an agent's inferred jurisdiction or classification from the water description.
The brief does not carry A06's rule or does not allow an unresolved answer.
Examination notes state a conclusion without saying what was checked.
A defense that restates the memorandum but cannot explain the consequence of a changed premise.

Issued 1 November 2026 · Source 54a6c22a9d ↗ · Markdown