# Instructor Guidance — Courses 05 to 07

Use this guide after learners complete the relevant practice. Keep its answer guidance separate from an active assessment.

These courses connect individual reasoning, human relationships, and project definition. Examine the grounds for action as well as the produced documents.

[Series](../index.html) · [Northbank case](../case-study.html) · [Glossary](../glossary.html) · [References](../references.html)

## Preparation and teaching conditions

Supply Northbank Packets A and B. Withhold later packets during the assessed work.

Ask learners to bring the portfolio from Courses 01 to 04. Use controlled source copies where earlier outputs are missing.

Use the supplied case for offline study. Actual jurisdiction research is optional and needs separately supplied authoritative sources.

Do not invent a pump curve, electrical arrangement, safety classification, law, code clause, or approved scope change.

Keep exercise decisions identifiable. A classroom sponsor can decide a submitted proposal. Record the act separately from the original case documents.

Different solutions can meet the criteria. Require the learner to explain their basis, limits, authority, and consequences.

Use three ratings for each criterion: meets, needs repair, or insufficient evidence. Re-examine affected work after repair.

## Course 05 — Suggested session sequence

Open [Course 05](../courses/05-reasoning-judgment.html).

1. Ask learners to state the reliance proposed in their previous interpretation exercise.
2. Teach claims, evidence, warrants, models, uncertainty, and decision authority.
3. Discuss the supplier worked example.
4. Assign the five-claim practice individually.
5. Exchange claim tables for a focused challenge.
6. Discuss which affected people and consequences need consideration.
7. Assign the procurement memorandum.
8. Conduct an oral defense and repair session.

For a shorter session, assign the lessons and memorandum as preparation. Retain live time for challenge and defense.

### Knowledge-check answers

1. Evidence provides relevant information. A warrant explains why that information supports a particular claim and intended reliance.
2. Both calculations can inherit the same mistaken input, method, or omitted condition. Agreement alone does not establish correctness of the shared basis or its use.
3. Identify the proposition, source, uncertainty, affected decision, resolution owner, required evidence, and point of need.
4. Verification examines conformity to specified requirements. Validation examines fitness for intended use under relevant conditions.
5. A01 gives the sponsor scope-amendment authority. Discipline engineers retain technical responsibility; that authority does not transfer to the sponsor.
6. Reconsider the affected conclusion. Record the changed premise and reasoning. Repair affected work and re-examine dependent conclusions.

### Sample practice reasoning

| Submitted claim | Defensible reasoning |
| --- | --- |
| No 480 V arrangement can be used | A04 establishes the observed connection. It does not rule on every possible engineered supply arrangement. Competent assessment remains necessary. |
| Brochure proves duty | B01 lacks a selected curve and operating cases. A02 leaves hydraulic inputs unresolved. The offered duty remains unestablished. |
| 22 litres per second is current | A05 is a proposal. A02 Rev 1 retains 18 litres per second until the sponsor makes a scope amendment. |
| Week 12 authorizes deviation | B02 records a target request. It provides no technical deviation approval or scope amendment. |
| All work must stop | Identify specific dependencies. Source retrieval, operating clarification, and commercial inquiries can proceed within authority. Hold acts lacking their required conditions. |

Accept replacement statements that preserve these distinctions. A statement may identify a precise question instead of resolving it without evidence.

A defensible memorandum returns B01 for correction and substantiation while continuing suitable information gathering. Other responses can meet the criteria under explicit limits.

A conditional acceptance must identify exactly what act it permits. It cannot support procurement through unresolved technical suitability disguised as a later condition.

Ask how the learner would recognize evidence against their preferred option. Examine whether the answer identifies a meaningful premise.

For affected parties, credit reasoned inquiry about operating personnel, maintainers, site users, and relevant public effects. Do not require invented hazards.

### Assessment guidance

| Criterion | Evidence that meets it |
| --- | --- |
| Identified decision and reliance | The reader can distinguish technical review, scope decision, expenditure authorization, and order release. |
| Scope and authority | The argument preserves A02 and A05 status, with the A01 decision rights stated accurately. |
| Technical grounds | The voltage discrepancy and missing hydraulic inputs receive explicit examination without a fabricated solution. |
| Options and consequences | Alternatives receive a fair comparison, including uncertainty, affected parties, and conditions on further work. |
| Defense and repair | The learner answers a substantive challenge and explains any changed premise or justified retained conclusion. |

Needs repair: confident acceptance based on brochure data, permanent rejection of every possible 480 V arrangement, or a schedule promise without evidence.

## Course 06 — Suggested session sequence

Open [Course 06](../courses/06-working-relationships.html).

1. Ask learners to explain their Course 05 recommendation to a non-specialist.
2. Teach shared understanding, interests, authority, and credible persuasion.
3. Compare stakeholder tables in small groups.
4. Assign Northbank meeting roles from A01 and B02.
5. Conduct the practice meeting.
6. Ask each participant to state the next authorized action independently.
7. Compare those statements with the meeting record.
8. Discuss confidentiality, conflicting interests, and challenge under pressure.
9. Conduct the assessed review and its repair.

A mentor can play several roles in individual study. Keep the learner responsible for both explanation and listening.

### Knowledge-check answers

1. Receipt confirms communication reached someone. The recipient may interpret its terms, conditions, or intended action differently.
2. Interest concerns desired effects. Expertise concerns competent assessment. Authority concerns a specified decision right.
3. Disclose uncertainty that affects the decision, its consequences, and the work it limits. Explain the proposed resolution.
4. Establish the disputed proposition. Facts may need observation or analysis. Scope choices need the appropriate decision authority and impact assessment.
5. Record the actual decision, remaining concern, evidence, affected work, responsible owner, and resolution route. Do not imply technical agreement.
6. Provide suitable inputs, competence, capacity, supervision, and review. Examine bad news honestly and correct the evidenced cause.

### Sample practice reasoning

| Role | Supported concern and contribution |
| --- | --- |
| Sponsor | Scope, budget, and target decisions; the A05 impact assessment before its adoption. |
| Project manager | Execution and delivery coordination within the approved basis; a credible response to unresolved conditions. |
| Project engineer | Coherent technical basis and interfaces; technical findings routed to the relevant specialists. |
| Operations | Operating conditions, changeover definition, operating information, and readiness arrangements. |
| Procurement | A technically reviewed package and required expenditure authorization; commercial inquiry into the supplier slot. |

Add discipline engineers or represent their supplied positions through the project engineer. Do not give the meeting invented engineering answers.

A suitable opening identifies the purchase-package decision. It explains why B01 and A05 require different responses.

A useful record distinguishes A02's current requirement from A05's request. It retains the voltage discrepancy and hydraulic gaps.

Proposed actions can assign operating clarification to operations and technical checks to the respective discipline roles. Mark these as exercise assignments.

An action date can be proposed in the exercise. Do not present it as a supplied commitment or assume that it proves readiness.

For the understanding check, participants should state compatible next actions and conditions. Different role-specific detail is acceptable.

For confidentiality, credit an authorized route that provides enough permitted evidence for examination. Reject withholding a material limitation while claiming suitability.

For conflicting interests, credit disclosure and treatment through the relevant arrangement. Avoid a universal legal ruling for the fictional case.

### Assessment guidance

| Criterion | Evidence that meets it |
| --- | --- |
| Truthful explanation | The speaker states relevant uncertainty and resists pressure to imply unsupported acceptance. |
| Stakeholder distinctions | The table separates interests, knowledge, contributions, and actual decision rights. |
| Listening and fair treatment | The discussion restates concerns accurately, allows correction, and identifies appropriate routes for conflicting interests and confidential evidence. |
| Accurate meeting record | The record distinguishes decisions, proposals, actions, and unresolved concerns. |
| Common next action | Participant explanations agree on authority and conditions or identify a difference for repair. |

Needs repair: agreement obtained by omitting a technical concern, a meeting chair claiming every approval, or unsupported attribution of motives.

Judge the handling of disagreement, not the absence of disagreement. An accurate unresolved issue can be a successful meeting result.

## Course 07 — Suggested session sequence

Open [Course 07](../courses/07-project-definition.html).

1. Ask learners to distinguish Northbank's product from its project.
2. Teach purpose, basis, requirements, scope allocation, and readiness.
3. Examine the purchase-preparation worked example.
4. Assign the weak-statement repair.
5. Compare alternative work boundaries and their interfaces.
6. Prepare the proposed project basis.
7. Review coverage from requirements to deliverables.
8. Review coverage from deliverables back to their justified purpose.
9. Repair gaps and explain remaining open matters.

### Knowledge-check answers

1. The product is the resulting installation or other intended result. The project organizes its development and delivery, including continuing-responsibility transfer.
2. Establish purpose, users, requirements, scope, boundaries, constraints, sources, decisions, acceptance responsibilities, interfaces, and unresolved treatment.
3. The conditions define the intended obligation. Removing them can create a different claim and an inadequate examination.
4. One participant accounts for the whole obligation. Explicit supporting contributions and interfaces establish how others help fulfill it. Contributors and reviewers retain their assigned and professional duties.
5. Allocation establishes who must supply the work. Satisfaction requires produced results and evidence against the obligation.
6. State the uncertain input, authorized interim basis, consequences, resolution owner, evidence needed, point of need, and limits on proceeding.

### Sample practice reasoning

The weak statement leaves the equipment requirement, selected configuration, voltage response, future-scope status, and examination unclear.

A suitable replacement asks for an identified equipment requirement under A02 Rev 1. It assigns operating, mechanical, electrical, and controls contributions.

It requires the unresolved hydraulic inputs and legal-applicability inquiry to be treated before dependent technical decisions. It preserves A05 as proposal work.

A supported interpretation can identify an existing obligation. That obligation does not await sponsor adoption. New project constraints and resulting commitment changes need their appropriate decisions.

The work division can vary. A useful proposal includes these contributions:

| Contribution | Coverage and receiving need |
| --- | --- |
| Operating and hydraulic basis | A02's duty conditions, two-unit arrangement, tank reuse, and required changeover clarification. |
| Mechanical equipment and piping | Equipment selection basis, piping, supports, and mechanical information for the connected disciplines. |
| Electrical design | Existing supply assessment, selected motor conditions, starting method, and applicable electrical work. |
| Civil contribution | Loads, base dimensions, supports where assigned, and access relationships from B03. |
| Controls definition | Confirmed changeover function, alarms, and restart behavior needed for intended operation. |
| Operating information | Access, isolation, maintenance, and restart information for the receiving operations role. |
| Technical coordination | Shared basis, interfaces, requirements inquiry, and combined technical examination. |
| Project coordination | Budget and target control, authorized procurement route, and A05's impact-assessment route. |

This is proposed allocation, not an issued design or complete acceptance method. Require the learner to define concrete deliverables and examination.

An interface record should identify a supplier and consumer for each exchange. A useful point of need relates to selection, review, procurement, or installation.

Accept different allocations for support design when competent responsibility and the interface remain clear. Do not require a fixed organizational hierarchy.

No acceptance tolerance is supplied for flow measurement. Credit an assigned method-development need instead of a fabricated threshold.

### Assessment guidance

| Criterion | Evidence that meets it |
| --- | --- |
| Preserved basis | A02 remains approved; A05 remains proposed; the budget and target remain constraints. |
| Requirements and examination | Obligations retain operating conditions and identify evidence or method-development needs. |
| Complete allocation | The division covers equipment, piping, supports, electrical, controls, operating information, inputs, and coordination. |
| Interfaces | Exchanges have contributions, proposed owners, receiving needs, and a home for technical coordination. |
| Open-matter treatment | Hydraulic conditions, electrical checks, changeover definition, and A06 are connected to the acts they limit. |

Needs repair: a polished basis that adopts 22 litres per second, deletes unresolved requirements, or treats a deliverable assignment as fulfilled work.

## Common defects across the three courses

- A later proposal silently replaces an approved requirement.
- A checked observation supports a broader claim than it examined.
- Schedule authority is treated as technical-deviation authority.
- A conditional decision leaves its permitted act unclear.
- A contribution is assigned without its needed inputs.
- A disagreement disappears from the record without evidence or disposition.
- A legal conclusion is inferred from a fictional site name.
- A concern is hidden to improve agreement or reported progress.

Return each defect with its affected claim and evidence. Ask the learner to repair the reasoning and its connected outputs.

Close each assignment when all five criteria have sufficient evidence. Preserve the remaining genuine uncertainty within the approved learning output.