This lesson is the program's own instruction manual. It describes the learning model you are inside, the rubric your project work will be scored on, and the map of this course, so that nothing that happens in the next sixteen weeks is a surprise. Read the rubric closely. You will be scoring yourself against it, and the gap between your score and your mentor's is one of the most useful pieces of information the program produces.
By the end you should be able to name the three axes of the model and say what each measures and how it moves (2.1), put the eight stages of the project cycle in order and say what Launch means (2.2), state the four assessed criteria and where each is most visible (2.3), explain the three minimums and the reversibility rule (2.4), place a described behavior at a level on the rubric (2.5), and find any lesson on the course map and name the rung it prepares for (2.6).
In this lesson 8 sections
Read alongside this lesson: The Solutionist Mindset(opens in a new tab) (10 minutes) and The minimum in minimum viable analysis is not a fixed number(opens in a new tab) (8 minutes). The Senior Mindset piece is deliberately not assigned yet; the model assigns it when you reach the team lead rung. The handbook that travels with this course, Writing Effective Objectives and Assessments, is introduced in Lesson 3 and read chapter by chapter from Lesson 5; nothing in it is needed yet.
2.1 What you build changes constantly. What we assess never changes.
Two years ago the deliverable in this program was a course. Today it is as often a system prompt, an assistant or a small tool. Next year it will be something else. The four things we assess have not moved and will not: Analysis, Alignment, Evaluation and Iteration. That is what lets the program promise you a method rather than a syllabus, and it is why this course teaches you the field's vocabulary rather than a tool's menus.
The model has three dimensions, and they move at different speeds. You hold a position on all three at once, so "where am I in the program" is a three-part answer, not a week number.
| Axis | What it is | How it moves | Its steps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mindset (vertical) | What you are becoming: mental habits, built and assessed on real work | Builds over the whole program and never resets |
|
| Journey (diagonal) | Where you go: the steps before and during live project work | Advances once, in one direction, at your own pace |
|
| Cycle (horizontal) | How every project runs | Repeats with every project, then iterates into the next |
|
The seven mindsets map onto four beats: Learn, Do and Be, the three phases Lesson 3 describes, and Create value, where they pay out. Learn is the Growth mindset: the want to be better before you know how, and nothing else lands without it. Do carries three, Builder, Solutionist and Velocity, because moving on the solution and moving with speed and accuracy are different capabilities that have to arrive together. Be is the Senior mindset: owning the outcome beyond your role. Create value is Thought leader and Innovator: insight that travels without you in the room, and building a thing that does not exist yet.
2.2 The project cycle, and what Launch means
Every project runs the full cycle: Plan, Design, Develop, Demo, Feedback, Reflect and document, Act, Launch. Three points about it that most people get wrong on their first project.
First, Launch is the deadline, not the finish. It does not mean the work is complete. It means the line is drawn and you go; whatever is unfinished becomes the first item of the next iteration. A project that never launches because it is not finished has misunderstood the stage.
Second, the three stages before Launch, Feedback, Reflect and document, and Act, are the return arc. They are what turn a finished project into a higher starting point rather than just a finished project. Most process models leave them implicit. Here they are mandatory, and Iteration, the criterion that scores them, is the one the rubric says most clearly separates people who can be given a second project from people who can only be given a first.
Third, the Demo is where you find out whether the product cleared the bar you set at Plan. You do not get to certify your own product. That single rule is why analysis matters: the checklist you write at Plan is the yardstick the Demo is judged against.
Check yourself: A teammate says "we cannot launch, the assessment section is not done." What does the model say?
Launch anyway if the deadline has arrived: the line is drawn, and the unfinished assessment section becomes the first item of the next iteration. If the minimum viable ROI set at Plan included a working assessment, then the product did not clear its own bar, which is a finding for the Demo and the Feedback stage, not a reason to move the deadline.
2.3 The four criteria, and where each is most visible
| Criterion | The question | Most visible at | What it looks for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis | Do you understand enough to move intelligently? | Plan | Not maximum analysis: enough to move in the right direction, not enough to be certain. Five questions get you there (2.4), and the fifth one builds the yardstick used at Demo. |
| Alignment | Does what you made serve what you found? | Design and Develop | The connection between purpose, audience and intended outcome on one side and what you actually produced on the other. It is where most gaps surface, because it is easy to build something good that answers a question nobody asked. Speed makes this harder: when a prototype takes an hour, you can generate a great deal and confirm none of it. |
| Evaluation | Is it any good, and how do you know? | Demo and Feedback | Four lenses: learning science validation (does this match how people learn), contextual relevance (does it fit the real application need), instructional integrity (will it produce the intended outcome), implementation feasibility (can it be executed given real constraints). |
| Iteration | Did this pass improve on the one before it? | Reflect and document, Act, Launch | Reading hard feedback accurately, deciding what to change and what to hold, making the change, and capturing what you learned so the next pass starts higher. Scored from the work, not from how you feel about it. |
Running through all four is your mindset. It is assessed in every assignment, every demo and every piece of feedback you give, and the gaps are coached. It is not a fifth criterion, because it is not separable. It is the oxygen in the process.
One sentence from the model is worth memorizing, because it is the argument for everything in Unit D: AI lowered the cost of a first draft and raised the cost of trusting one. Analysis before production sets direction. Analysis after production is what determines whether what you made was any good.
2.4 The three minimums and the reversibility rule
Velocity is the mindset. The three minimums are the discipline that keeps it accurate rather than merely fast. They are standards you set early and check against throughout, and they run in order: the analysis surfaces the goals, the goals set the bar, and the product is the first finished thing built to clear it.
Minimum viable analysis (MVA), set at Plan. How much do you need to understand before you start? Enough to move in the right direction, not enough to be certain. The rule that sizes it is reversibility: if the decision is easy to reverse, decide now and adjust; if it is hard to reverse, slow down and think it through first. Five questions get you there:
- Who are we solving a problem for? (direction)
- What problem are we trying to solve? (direction)
- What opportunity are we trying to create? (desired impact)
- What experience, activity or outcome is required? (success conditions)
- What needs to be true for this to work? (evaluation criteria)
Question five is the hinge. Its answer has to be specific enough to check at Demo. "It should be engaging" cannot be checked. "A new charge nurse can complete the handoff checklist from memory in under four minutes after one session" can.
Minimum viable ROI (MVR), set at Plan and checked throughout. The predetermined results of value the project must meet, identified from the goals and purpose and written down before work starts. That is what makes MVR external: it is not judged by how finished the work feels to you, and it is not renegotiable once you are attached to what you built. It is also what defeats perfectionism.
Minimum viable product (MVP), built before Demo and tested at Demo. Your first fully finished product that meets MVR. Finished, not rough. Minimum because you stopped at the point value is produced rather than carrying on past it.
How the minimum holds under pressure: scope creep almost never arrives as "let us do more." It arrives as "this would add value" or "would it not be better if." Those are usually true, which is what makes them hard to refuse. The tell is a decision that was already settled coming back up, argued this time on how much it would add rather than on whether it is needed. The question is never "is this valuable," because the answer is always yes. The question is "is this necessary."
Check yourself: You are choosing between two authoring tools for a prototype that will be thrown away after the Demo. How much analysis does the model say this needs?
Very little. The decision is easy to reverse (the prototype is disposable), so the reversibility rule says decide now and adjust. Spending a day comparing tools here is research being used to avoid starting, which is a Level 4 Analysis behavior to spot in others and a habit to break in yourself.
2.5 The Work Rubric, in full
This is the instrument your project work is scored on, from QA cycle one onward. It is shown to you whole because a learner who cannot read the standard cannot self-assess against it. The levels describe how much responsibility a person can be given, so the rubric also answers whether someone is ready for the next rung. Two things to know before you read it. The four criteria are scored separately; one combined score hides exactly what a mentor needs to see. And Level 3 is the gate for being responsible for other people's work. QA cycle one is where your first Evaluation score is produced, so the gate cannot apply to it; it applies from the rungs after it, QA cycle two and the team lead project, which need at least Level 3 on Evaluation.
| Criterion | 1 Supported Needs the standard given to them | 2 Independent Meets the standard on their own work | 3 Trusted Can be responsible for other people's work | 4 Sets the standard Holds the standard for other people |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis Do you understand enough to move? Before building, you answer the five questions. The last one gives you the checklist you will judge the finished work against. |
Answers the five questions when someone prompts them. The last question gets vague answers like "it should be engaging," which cannot be checked later. Waits for a fuller brief before starting. | Answers all five on their own, on familiar work. The last question gets answers specific enough to check, but some are guesses never confirmed with the person who asked. Starts before the brief is finished. | Answers all five on unfamiliar work with a thin brief. Gets the person who asked to agree to the checklist before building starts. Says out loud what is still unknown, and starts anyway on purpose. | Pulls the five answers out of someone else's vague request while talking to them. Tells other people when they have analyzed enough. Spots when research is being used to avoid starting, and says so. |
| Alignment Does what you made serve what you found? Whether the thing you built actually answers what your analysis said was needed. Easy to get wrong when tools let you build fast. |
Can explain what they built. Says it fits the audience and the purpose, but cannot show how. Finds the gaps only when someone else points them out. | Can show how the big decisions connect back to the analysis, on their own work. Notices their own mismatch at Demo, after it is already built. Makes a lot and checks little. | Notices the mismatch while building, not at Demo. Cuts good work because it answers a question nobody asked. Makes less and checks more, even when tools make it cheap to make a lot. | Spots the mismatch in other people's work and says exactly where it is. Holds the line when a deadline tempts the team to build past what was asked. |
| Evaluation Is it any good, and how do you know? Four lenses: does it match how people learn, does it fit the real situation, will it get the result, can it actually be built and run. |
Judges the work by whether it is done and looks right. Uses one lens, usually whether it can be built. Leaves the quality call to a mentor. | Uses all four lenses when prompted. Says what they think is wrong, but not why it matters. Judgments sound like opinion. | Uses all four lenses without being asked, against the checklist set at Plan. Backs up judgments with evidence, and holds up when challenged. Judges other people's work well enough to be responsible for it. | Defends a quality call to a client or stakeholder under real pressure. Helps a team judge work the same way, instead of everyone using their own bar. |
| Iteration Did this round improve on the last one? Scores whether the work changed, not how a person feels about it. |
Gets through feedback, reflect, document and act as steps to complete. Notes are accurate, but nobody uses them. Makes the same mistakes next round. | Can say what to change. Some changes show up next round, others get written down and forgotten. Changes come from feedback they were given, not problems they found themselves. | The changes they named actually show up next round, and you can point to them. Acts on problems they found themselves, not only feedback received. Writes notes someone can make a decision from. | Improves how the team works, not only their own next round. Someone who was not there can pick up their notes and use them. |
What each criterion is scored from. A score is only as good as what was looked at, and the rubric names the source so two assessors score the same thing. Analysis: the plan and the checklist written at Plan, compared against what was actually used to judge the work at Demo. Alignment: the finished work set next to the analysis, plus what was asked at Demo and what got cut or redone while building. Evaluation: the Demo, the calls you made about your own work and about work you reviewed during QA. Iteration: two rounds side by side, your notes, and whether anyone later used those notes to decide something.
How you will use it. After each round you and your mentor score the same work separately, then compare. If your score is always two levels higher than the mentor's, that is an Evaluation problem, and Evaluation is one of the four things on the sheet. If yours is always lower, that is a confidence problem, which needs a different conversation. The gap is information, not noise. Nobody enters a score they cannot point at.
Check yourself: A learner writes accurate notes after every demo, and the same alignment gap appears in three consecutive projects. Which criterion, and which level?
Iteration, Level 1 (Supported). The notes are accurate but nobody uses them, and the same mistake recurs next round. Accurate reflection is not iteration; iteration is scored from whether the work changed.
The extra thought mile
Enrichment. This section is not tied to a numbered objective and the checkpoint does not test it.
The three axes describe the whole program. This describes a single confusing Tuesday. A bootcamp graduate built the habit, called it the extra thought mile, and now works in the field. When you do not know what to do, this is what to do, and it is also almost exactly what a hiring manager is testing for in an interview.
- Name the uncertainty instead of freezing on it. In writing, to someone.
- Analyze what you believe should be done, using your own judgment, before you take it to anyone.
- Build the deliverable or the proposal from that analysis: something concrete a person can react to.
- Present it and ask whether you are aligned, rather than waiting to be told.
The test is simple: did you arrive with a proposal, or with a question? A question gets you an answer, which solves today and teaches nothing. A proposal gets your reasoning corrected, which is the thing an apprenticeship used to provide.
2.6 The course map
Twelve lessons in four units. Every lesson is open to you now, in any order; reading ahead is encouraged. What is gated is the project rung: passing a unit's assessment and having its written responses accepted makes you eligible for the rung in the right-hand column, and your mentor assigns the project itself in person. The first two units are the two-week introduction the model describes; Units C and D are timed to arrive about a week before the project that uses them.
| Unit | Lessons | Assessed by | Makes you eligible for |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. The field and this program | 1 What an instructional designer does 2 How we work here (this lesson) | Checkpoints; Unit A is about a sixth of the Unit B pool, so expect three or four items on that paper | Assessed with Unit B |
| B. How people learn | 3 Learning theories, andragogy and pedagogy 4 Learning science with evidence 5 Taxonomies and objectives | Unit B assessment (20 items) and CR-B, repair three objectives | QA cycle one |
| C. How the work is organized | 6 Frameworks and principles 7 Process models, including ours 8 Analysis | Unit C assessment (20 items), CR-C1 choose and defend a model, CR-C2 five questions on a brief | First solo project |
| D. Judging the work | 9 Assessment fundamentals 10 Accessibility, delivery and visual basics 11 AI in the instructional design workflow 12 Readiness check | Unit D assessment (25 items drawn from a pool of 60; about a third of the pool is Units A to C, so expect eight or so cumulative items), CR-D1 write two items, CR-D2 judge the draft | Team lead project |
The three rungs in the right-hand column are the ones this course gates. The rungs it does not gate, QA cycle two, the team project and the external project, are assigned by your mentor on the strength of your Work Rubric scores from the rung before; nothing in this course opens or closes them.
How the assessments work. Checkpoints end every content lesson: five to fifteen questions, unlimited attempts, no interval, for you. Unit assessments have a pass mark of 85%. Sittings are unlimited, at least 24 hours apart, and each sitting draws its questions from a larger pool (48 for Unit B, 40 for Unit C and 60 for Unit D, against papers of 20, 20 and 25), so a retake is a second test rather than a memory test. A written response is uploaded on its lesson page; it counts the moment it arrives, your mentor reads it and either accepts it (meets) or returns it with a note (not yet), and a returned response stops counting until a revision lands.
Before your first project
Your mentor will send you a short survey before QA cycle one. It asks about your background, how much detail you naturally work in, and how you explain what you see. There are no right answers; it becomes the groundwork for your first project. Complete it when it arrives, then take this lesson's checkpoint.
Sources named in this lesson: the 24/7 Teach learning model and the Work Rubric v0.3 (internal documents, reproduced here), the two linked articles, and the graduate whose habit became the extra thought mile.